Layout Design Philosophy.

[edcayton]

Lately there have been several posts of the "please critique my plan" type. This has got me thinking,

 

Many people model the real thing. In my opinion these make the "best" model railways. I have said before that my all-time favourite is/was Tebay. Another (though I have not seen it in the flesh) is Tony Wright's Little Bytham.

 

But, and it's a big but, these are big layouts that have been built by a team and need a team to run to their full capacity. I, and I suspect most people, lack the time, space, money, skills, friends and I dare say the desire for such a personal layout.

 

I don't want to model a tiny, one-engine-in-steam terminus/industry layout(at least not in 00), but I can only drive one train at a time. If I want two or more trains moving at the same time then I need a continuous run so I can set them going and play at shunting or running a branch or whatever. At forty odd quid for a coach now I can't afford ten-coach trains, and don't have the room anyway. I reckon that I can just about get five coaches and a large loco, and to me that is OKish for an express (ducks).

 

I think what I am saying is that whilst I want my railway to be realistic it can't be because it's a MODEL railway with only me running it. The trains have no purpose but to please me, they don't carry freight or passengers or have a destination.

 

Or am I talking utter bo11ox (as I often do)? Thoughts?

 

Ed

[Gwiwer]

It is well-known around these traps that I enjoy a 35-metre circuit on the main layout thanks to having some generous outdoor under-cover space.  That means I can and do run prototypical trains up to usually 10 on behind a loco or 2+8 HST sets.  I can and occasionally do run summer Saturday holiday trains with one or two locos and up to 16 on. 

 

The layout was built single-handed and with the original intention that it should be capable of operation by one person though with an option for two or three to share the fun.  For all its size and apparent complexity it is actually remarkably simple and consists of four electrically independent circuits namely the up and down main lines and the two branch lines of which one includes a goods yard and shed.  It's DC but for all that there is only one single insulted joint on the entire layout.  Almost all moves of normal traffic can be performed without a clash of electrical interests.

 

I have a Morley Vortrak controller which has four separate rotating dials wired respectively to each of the electrical circuits meaning I can run up to four trains simultaneously - somewhat akin to the old "four-in-hand" driving technique of coachmen when horse-power literally meant that.  It took a little practice to achieve and still requires the fullest attention if I am to avoid a buffer-stop collision by one branch train while I watch how the other (which can be over 10 metres away) is doing.  Or up to three guest operators can take a dial each and while some get the main line and others a shuttle branch the option remains to share the driving.

 

I have even managed to have six trains moving at once.  The two main line trains are set in motion and the points then set to release one from the fiddle yard to each main line and route the first pair back into the yard.  Plus the two branches on the go.  But that's getting greedy.  However it shows what a DC set-up run by one person can achieve.  It certainly keeps visitors occupied and it takes all my concentration to both run the panel and host a gathering!

 

In quieter moments I can put the main line trains into the fiddle yard and shunt freight across the "rare" points and crossings to my heart's content.

 

We all have our own space, budget, capabilities and aspirations.  Within that we all have to make some sort of compromises to achieve a workable layout.  The trains have little purpose other than to please me but they do bring a lot of pleasure to others as well.    The scenery is typical of the south west and is inspired by though not modelled directly upon many actual locations from St. Erth and Carbis Bay in Cornwall up to Marley Tunnel in Devon.  I'm frequently told that it (including the self-weathered trains used) looks very realistic.

 

I enjoyed building it and I enjoy running it.  The fact that others also enjoy it is a hugely satisfying bonus.  Not bo11ux at all

[Zomboid]

What's the question here? This is a hobby that we all do for our own individual enjoyment. It's quite acceptable to run whatever you want on whatever you want.

 

A named, 1 or 2-coach express with a large main line locomotive at a west country BLT? That's the Atlantic Coast Express anyhow, unless you've chosen to model the incorrect west country railway company...

 

Personally I don't like layouts that are focussed on passenger operations or which are a "track everywhere" affair. So mine is a tiny american shunting plank, which I enjoy very much. Though being just about ready to start adding scenics now, I am just a little apprehensive. I'd like to make something a little larger, truth be told, but one thing at a time, I have to finish what I have started before the next thing comes along. Plus I only have a 5x1 space in this house, so anything bigger will have to wait until such time as I've moved anyhow. But when I do get there, I want something that is crucial to my view & experience of american railroads - a tight radius 90 degree curve. I'm pretty sure I can find some way of getting one of those in...

[Andy Hayter]

_{Layout design will depend on a number of factors.}

 

_{How many operators?}

_{How much space?}

_{Era or eras?}

_{Level of use of computerised/automatic operation.}

 

_{To expand, a layout for one operator will look very different from one designed to be used for several or many operators.   My current 30ft long continuous run 4 track French layout was designed to be operated by several operators.  Now isolated in France I have to run it myself - which is just about possible, but something of an air traffic controller's  high stress test - if done with any degree of accuracy - rather than running in a just roundy roundy fashion.    I can choose to do either or take a mid position - run tracks 1 and 2 as roundy roundy and control 3 and 4.}

 

 

_{I am now thinking about my UK layout, and accepting that I am a lone operator have the dilemma that I think you allude to.   With the big layout, my space is limited.  A one man operated layout would be relatively easy as a single track roundy roundy, but I no longer have the space.  So what next?  Through station with a fiddle yard at each end is not practical for one man operation - but would be with more operators.    Alternatively with DCC and computer/remote/I-pad control it might be possible to run such a layout if  the fiddle yards were point controlled.  A fiddle yard with a transverser would be a whole new challenge - but one to be conquered.}   

 

_{So for me - roundy roundy is out.  Fiddle yard to fiddle yard is out.}

_{This just leaves a terminus to fiddle yard - and it has to e said that this will be challenging to operate given that you will need to be at both ends at the same time.}

_{This leads to an inevitable conclusion that the smaller such a layout is, the more operable it becomes.  It becomes much easier to move 2m right or left to do things on th layout or in the fiddle yard, than if you have to move 5m in each direction - which might be good for the waistline but not for your sanity.}  

 

_{I haven't touched on eras particularly, but modern tack layouts tend to be simpler, and therefore easier to fit into a compact space, than and era 2/3 layout which might be much more complex.}

 

_{We then come to what sort of terminus,  A double track terminus has many attractions, but with a sloe operator creates challenges in thet the sole operator is responsible for simultaneously dispatching and receiving from the fiddle yard and from the station.}

 

_{A  lone operator might well be led therefore to a terminus at the end of a single line branch - but this might greatly restrict the locos and stock you could realistically run - but rule 1 will always apply and if your branch needs an A4 with triplet dining set, then so be it.} 

 

 

 

 

_{You can see why many lone operators are led to "shunting" layouts.} 

 

 

 

_{This is a very complex subject and I look forward to the various views.}

[34theletterbetweenB&D]

The starting point for me is 'what I am interested in seeing and doing on my model railway?'. Everything flows from that. The constraints and whatever compromises they lead to should all be tested against that question, to ensure that whatever is built and done delivers what you are interested in.

 

I still remember a very well written piece by Jim Whittaker in the 1970s, a man noted for finescale scratchbuilt coaches and NPCCS, in which he 'confessed' to discovering that building a layout really wasn't for him. He wanted to build vehicles. They occasionally got a run on other friend's layouts, and that was fine.

[rue_d_etropal]

Small shunting layouts are not a compromise. Those who build them usually enjoy building layouts and operating them. If they are exhibited they are probably harder work, unless you have a second operator. They work even better when other operating features(eg cranes or tipping wagons) are included.

I have little interest in building a large layout myself suitable for long trains, as I have done that with club layouts. I have noted that a 4 track mainline is better than a 2 track mainline. At exhibitions it is possible to keep 2 lines running, using same trains for a long time(A slow passenger and a long freight are ideal), and use the other 2 lines for a variety of trains. Thus when,trains are being changed, there is still,something moving. That is one of the most important things at exhibitions. I have seen too many large layouts with a large crowd of operators and at most one train running. I have also seen many very small, but with a lot of detail and interesting features(a piece of artwork), possibly with nothing running, and they are worth studying.

On the other hand , at home, or within a club, you can do what ever pleases you.

[Pacific231G]

No you're not talking bo11ox. It's possible to build a model of a ship, car, aircraft or even a locomotive exactly to scale but even a small section of a main line railway is likely to be several miles long. You're unlikely to be able to model an entire station exactly to scale unless it's a very short one and it would probably be rather boring if you did.

 

It seems to me that the difference between railway modelling and most other types of modelling is that you can usually only produce an impression of the real thing. Even though it will probably include a number of scale models, the model railway as a whole can only be an impression but if the viewer feels as if they've experienced something of the reality portrayed then I'd say the model has succeeded. You only have to look at Peter Denny's Buckingham or Frank Dyer's Borchester Market - both happily still extant- or a more modern representation like Bradfield-Gloucester Square to see how successful that impression can be in a fraction of the length and with only part of the trackage such stations would include if they were real.

[cromptonnut]

Primarily I build for my own enjoyment, attempting to do so to the best of my abilities. If someone else can get enjoyment or pleasure from it, then that's a bonus.

[edcayton]

Lately there have been several posts of the "please critique my plan" type. This has got me thinking,

 

Many people model the real thing. In my opinion these make the "best" model railways. I have said before that my all-time favourite is/was Tebay. Another (though I have not seen it in the flesh) is Tony Wright's Little Bytham.

 

But, and it's a big but, these are big layouts that have been built by a team and need a team to run to their full capacity. I, and I suspect most people, lack the time, space, money, skills, friends and I dare say the desire for such a personal layout.

 

I don't want to model a tiny, one-engine-in-steam terminus/industry layout(at least not in 00), but I can only drive one train at a time. If I want two or more trains moving at the same time then I need a continuous run so I can set them going and play at shunting or running a branch or whatever. At forty odd quid for a coach now I can't afford ten-coach trains, and don't have the room anyway. I reckon that I can just about get five coaches and a large loco, and to me that is OKish for an express (ducks).

 

I think what I am saying is that whilst I want my railway to be realistic it can't be because it's a MODEL railway with only me running it. The trains have no purpose but to please me, they don't carry freight or passengers or have a destination.

 

Or am I talking utter bo11ox (as I often do)? Thoughts?

 

Ed

 

Do all the "agree's" mean that I am talking bo11ox?

 

Ed

[Joseph_Pestell]

There are probably as many "philosophies" as there are modellers.

 

Lucky are those who can precisely define what they want and have the right resources, especially space, to carry it out. Most of us have diverse interests and find it hard to make a choice/compromise. And that usually ends up as a lot of uncompleted projects and loss of "mojo".

 

I like just watching trains run by but I also like proper "playing" with trains, mainly shunting. I think what I need is a simple main line track at a low level with a shunting type layout at a higher level.

 

Edit to add: I can't remember who it was (CJ Freezer?) that wrote that a model railway is rather like a stage set. The bit you can see is real but you must also be able to imagine what lies off-stage.

[Reorte]

If you want to go down the computerised path I can see some interesting operational possibilities in the nearish future (could be done now if aomeone put the pieces together). Completely computer-controlled trains responding to the operator's signalling may be possible, or conversely the operator takes control of one train and the computer does the signalling, although it'll probably go wrong occasionally (there's a reason the full size railway employs human beings!). The awkard bit to work out with all of that is shunting.

[woodenhead]

There are probably as many "philosophies" as there are modellers.

 

Lucky are those who can precisely define what they want and have the right resources, especially space, to carry it out. Most of us have diverse interests and find it hard to make a choice/compromise. And that usually ends up as a lot of uncompleted projects and loss of "mojo".

Diverse and finding it hard to make the compromise - me in a nutshell and consequential loss of mojo is the result - not helped when yesterday my dad offered me all of his North American stock which is very tempting but yet another choice/compromise - wish he modelled HO instead of also being N like me as that might actually have been an easier decision.

 

No model railway has a purpose because somewhere there is likely to be a fiddleyard - it's name belies what goes on, it's where you fiddle your trains to return in a very unrealistic manner.  I sometimes wonder if two terminal stations linked by a continuous loop is a good compromise as you leave station A go around the loop a few times and then end up at station B - "Purpose".  Put in a through station and perhaps a small yard to allow marshalling even better.   Of course space is the thing we lack and real railways have unless you are in North America or Australia.

[Ross34]

I've noticed a common theme among the modellers I've met over the years. Many will design or build (or at least start to build) a layout that is beyond what is likely to be completed to the standard they envisaged in a reasonable timescale.

 

I have a mate who has the luxury of a large shed with finance to build an equally large layout - and that is what he has started to do - essentially fill the shed with track. But it will never be finished. He doesn't have all the skills or time required and not enough people to help who do either.

 

A smaller more achievable project would (in my view) help develop his skills and with a little help from friends at least complete a working layout.

 

I think if a lot modellers reined in their ambitions we'd see more completed good quality layouts ( I know I've had many a grand scheme come to nought) - less is more.

 

I used to buy stock often on a whim - Its took a while but I only buy stock now for a specific project. So I guess my design ethos is "achievability"

[BG John]

A smaller more achievable project would (in my view) help develop his skills and with a little help from friends at least complete a working layout.

That's why I'm building four small layouts, rather than one big one! I have four ambitions going back 40-47 years that I haven't fulfilled yet. I've built some of the layouts, but never had enough stock to operate them. So I want the following working layouts, with enough stock to operate them, and scenery that at least looks finished even if its not:

Broad gauge

Early 1900s GWR

A light railway (probably Colonel Stephens)

Narrow gauge of some sort

 

A working layout with enough stock to operate will come soon, when I get my OO Ingletyme wired up. 1958-60 Western Region has never been an ambition, especially with Peco track and RTR stock, but it will be the first time in about 45 years that I've been able to operate a layout without borrowed stock!

 

Small 4mm broad gauge, EM early 1900s GWR, and O gauge Colonel Stephens layouts are in the very early stages, and will be initially built as test tracks until I have enough stock to operate them. I'll add some buildings and scenery I've already got, or make some if I feel like it, but there's no rush.

 

My main effort will go into building stock, and renovating/improving what I already have. I'll be doing that in what appears to be a very random order, but hopefully a logical one where I do the things that are most straightforward first, and as my skills and facilities develop I should be able to make a better job of the more challenging stuff. So I'm starting mainly with 7mm as it's bigger and hopefully easier in many ways. Then when I've mastered that, I'll use the skills I've developed to do the smaller and more intricate stuff.

 

When I've got enough stock to operate one of the layouts, I'll start putting some effort into the scenery.

 

Hopefully, in the next few years I'll achieve all my ambitions on a very modest scale. Each layout is small enough to only need two locos, a few coaches, and maybe 10-20 wagons, and I have a fair amount already. So compared to building one fairly big layout, it's quite a modest plan, and I'll have something working and presentable a lot sooner. Then I can go on to build something big if I want to. I'll also be building some stock that is a bit basic, or maybe rather freelance but in an appropriate style, to develop my skills and get things happening. Neat and presentable will get me further for now, than aiming for strict accuracy and superdetailing. That can come later when I have the luxury of working and presentable layouts with enough stock.

 

The narrow gauge isn't forgotten. It crossed my mind the other day, but has been dismissed for now. I'm just going to keep half an eye out in case an interesting opportunity turns up. I don't care if I end up with a serious prototypical layout, or something totally weird and crazy, as long as it happens one day!

 

So my current philosophy, if it can be called that, is to achieve almost lifelong ambitions on a very modest and achievable scale, and to try to restrain any attempts to get big ideas that are, or may be, unachievable.

[Pacific231G]

 

 

No model railway has a purpose because somewhere there is likely to be a fiddleyard - it's name belies what goes on, it's where you fiddle your trains to return in a very unrealistic manner. 

You could argue that no artistic representation has a purpose. 

 

The French word for fiddle yard is coulisse which my Collins defines as the wings (of a theatre stage) or behind the scenes. So, just as you can only represent a slice of all human life on the stage of a theatre and the actors when offstage are doing crosswords, phoning their agents, or trying to get into character, so a model railways can normally only represent a slice of the whole railway and the "actors" when offstage are being shuffled around, taking on a new character (if a train) and being prepared for their next entrance. I think that's why I've never been that keen on models of MPDs; even though they provide the best option for showing off a lot of our leading characters - the locomotives- in a smallish space, It always seems like seeing the green room and never the stage. They may have been a good place for getting the stars' autographs (i.e. spotting their numbers) but not to watch their performance.

 

I think it was Frank Ellison who first likened the layout to a stage in his articles "The Art of Model Railroading" in Model Railroader in the late 1940s early 1950s. Ellison worked in the theatre in New Orleans, I think as a set designer, and built one of the finest layouts of his time, the 0 scale Delta Lines.

[peach james]

If you want to go down the computerised path I can see some interesting operational possibilities in the nearish future (could be done now if aomeone put the pieces together). Completely computer-controlled trains responding to the operator's signalling may be possible, or conversely the operator takes control of one train and the computer does the signalling, although it'll probably go wrong occasionally (there's a reason the full size railway employs human beings!). The awkard bit to work out with all of that is shunting.

 

It is possible at this point, with RR&Co Gold, and a LOT of time on ones hands.  I'm slowly working my way through this with Long Marton, in that it is intended to be operated as the signalman in Long Marton, and not as an engine driver.  It's a very short step from that to fully automatic operation of the through trains, and shunting LM.

 

James

[Reorte]

I've noticed a common theme among the modellers I've met over the years. Many will design or build (or at least start to build) a layout that is beyond what is likely to be completed to the standard they envisaged in a reasonable timescale.

That's me, don't have the space but I'll keep at it, slowly (do one board then move on to the next). The price you pay for trying to model a real location but the search for details to get right does mean having to learn more about the real thing, which can be rewarding in its own right.

[Karhedron]

We all want different things from layouts. That is true both in terms of what we want to represent and how much compromise we are willing to accept. Then we add in the limitations that curtail our choices (time, space money) and that narrows down the options available somewhat.

 

Someone with plenty of time, space and money (i.e. not me ) has a wider range of options available when it comes to the list of options.

[Catkins]

I'm coming at the 'problem' of layout design from a different perspective -

 

1) I have a small car (Renault Clio), and live in a two-up-two-down terrace house with a proper yard!

2) I have accumulated a lot of stock that represents the four corners of the UK - no single car DMU yet - and it is steam, diesel and electric, it is also anything upto 50+ years old.

3) I keep having ideas that are polar opposites.

 

I have decided that the best thing I could do is design a modular layout, where each board will fit in my car, whilst allowing space for a four/five coach and loco rake on the scenic section - that might be on multiple boards feeding into a fiddle yard at each end - using train lifting cradles to change the trains over.

I am thinking of a track plan that has some similarities to stations on the West Highland Line, but with a small yard and industrial line feeding in, with some generic (1970's) architecture for the railway buildings, and the nearby scenic treatment being a 'main' road and roadside inn/pub with a car park, and some greenery and a hint of trees. I would hope that any signs on the layout would be suggestive as opposed to accurate.

 

By building a modular layout, it can expand when I have more space or a bigger vehicle.

 

 

edited to change the points 'A-C' to numbers.

[Reorte]

Thinking a bit further about what I said and not having the space but going ahead anyway, I do have the cellar. It's not long enough for what I want but I'm wondering if I could tolerate going around corners and pretending that they don't exist. If the corners are separate boards that could be removed and the boards on either side match up (so in theory the layout could be reassembled without them) that may work. I'd need to do a lot of work on the cellar first though.

[LNER4479]

I unashamedly like big layouts and have also found a way to have one to be working on.

 

In my early adult life, I didn't have the space at home (not surprisingly) and, figuring out that I would most likely be nomadic at that time, I settled on building something in the loft at my Mum's house as (a) there was the space and (b ) I figured that she wouldn't be moving house any time soon (and mothers are usually pleased to see you!)

 

That prediction came true so, for the best part of 20 years I built and developed my 'previous' layout (Gowhole Sidings) in the loft there. I used the Peco system throughout so as to not to get bogged down in track building and was able to put together a reasonable mainline layout. Most of the time it was me working on it solo but it was punctuated by organised running sessions with interested visitors etc. Back home, I could work on stock, buildings, etc. That formula worked for me - but maybe it wouldn't have suited many.

 

My current project is a portable scheme and I didn't have the space to fully set it up when I first started - it's only in the last three years when I've finally had that space. Once again, use of Peco track makes it achievable (bearing in mind I'm still working five days a week!) and I thoroughly look forward to the periodic running sessions when the current 'gang' descend. In between those events, it's largely a solo effort.

 

Reorte - the cellar option sounds to have potential. I've no experience of such but would imagine that temperature / damp are the issues to overcome. Maybe you can go diagonal to give a greater scenic length?

[jamie92208]

Having read your post Ed you are not talking sweetbreads. I have been asked by several friends to help them design their model railway, either in the loft, portable, one that's for the grandchildren but is putable away, etc. and the first thing I say to them all is to tell me what they want to do with the layout. Only when those objectives have been defined in terms of method of operation, no of operators etc can the layout be designed to fit the available space, budget etc. This is what I have always called the design philosophy and includes such constraints as length of trains, type of terminus operation, need for uncoupling etc. It's certainly best to get all this sorted before any wood is cut or track laid.

 

I made many mistakes with y last layout Long Preston, which was never designed as a whole and just grew like Topsy. Hopefully many of those hard earned lessons have been incorporated into Lancaster Green Ayre.

 

I think that you are doing the right thing by setting out your objectives and constraints before construction and wish you good luck with it.

 

Once track has been laid and wired the design philosophy becomes hard wired into the layout and you then have to make the best of it.

 

Jamie

[Reorte]

Reorte - the cellar option sounds to have potential. I've no experience of such but would imagine that temperature / damp are the issues to overcome. Maybe you can go diagonal to give a greater scenic length?

The temperature is cool but fairly constant (I think, not been in here long enough to know for sure). The damp is a big issue to overcome. The original steps come from next door and have been walled off (it's been this way for a long, long time as far as I know - they're walled off in stone at any rate) so there's no real ventilation other than a fan which I leave on all the time (it was off and pretty mouldy in there when I moved in). Bare earth floor too. The whole thing would need to be tanked I guess to be useable, probably with a trench dug outside for a window to get ventiliation (my guess, I'll need to get someone in to look at it, and obviously I don't want to knock stones out of the wall and have the wall above come down!)

 

Diagonal might work if I compromise a bit but with having to have 135 degrees instead of 90 at the end for off-scenic sections... I'll need to take some measurements and do some sums. It'll be many years before I get around to it knowing me, I've still a lot of work to do on the one 6' section I started three or so years ago.