Poor layout design

[kevinlms]

I've just been looking at Railway Modeller for March 1995, which shows an ex-N.E.R. layout. The track plan has a major error as drawn, as it shows a main platform and bay station. However when passenger trains leave, the only track available heads straight into a pair of dead end sidings at a chemical plant! There appears to be a couple of buildings across the end of the sidings. There is a kickback available to a storage yard, located behind the station, just left. No mention of a 2nd fiddle yard, beyond the chemical plant.

 

I do hope no one designs a track plan, just like this one.

 

Sorry, no scanner at present so cannot post track plan, which many consists of a busy goods yard & small MPD.

[njee20]

I suspect, for anyone who has tried in the last 20 years, your observation is a little too late...

[PatB]

I'm not sure if I've seen that one but I've definitely seen, I think in RM, a number of layout plans with significant discrepancies from track arrangements clearly visible in photos. I can think of a number of reasons that this could happen. For instance the published track plan could have been drawn from an obsolete plan provided by the layout's owner and the discrepancy not picked up until too late in the production process to make changes.

 

Such obvious errors are still a little disappointing, though, in what portrays itself (with some justification historically, if no longer) as something of a flagship publication.

[kevinlms]

I'm not sure if I've seen that one but I've definitely seen, I think in RM, a number of layout plans with significant discrepancies from track arrangements clearly visible in photos. I can think of a number of reasons that this could happen. For instance the published track plan could have been drawn from an obsolete plan provided by the layout's owner and the discrepancy not picked up until too late in the production process to make changes.

 

Such obvious errors are still a little disappointing, though, in what portrays itself (with some justification historically, if no longer) as something of a flagship publication.

A more recent example is Hardwick Grange, by Frank Dyer. The track plan as it appeared in Model Rail 2012 April, couldn't possibly be right, as I'm sure Frank knew what he was doing, on layout design. The diagram on page 90 shows a strange arrangement, right in front of the signal box.

[Joseph_Pestell]

All the magazines are guilty of this from time to time, especially when they try to be a bit "arty".

 

Often the errors are sufficiently obvious, as in this case, that I am sure no one would make the mistake of building it. What worries me more is plans in the magazines which are said to be fit for a space of X x Y but actually need at least 50% more space to work.

[DCB]

1995 RM had some minor errors, but I have just seen the "Ho***y" Magazine for Jan 2016 and it sets new depths for awfulness among layout designs. Can't be built in the space, unprototypical, and crazily impractical to operate,  M**k C****s,"   is no CJF.  Admittedly even C.J Freezer was fond of drawing a 2ft radius curved diamond crossing in his "60 plans" series which was and is completely unavailable unless you scratch built one.  There are lots of incorrect plans in the magazines, and more annoyingly suggested plans which don't work, You simply can't get from some parts of the layout to others, or run round trains or myriad other frustrating reasons. 

[rockershovel]

Yes, but this sort of thing has been a feature of magazine publication from tne very earliest days.

 

Long before the name was associated with 0 Gauge locomotives, "Ixion" was a well-known mom-de-plume used by a clergyman in the motoring press, with particular reference to motorcycles. He was credited with euphemisms such as "LPA" (light pedal assistance) meaning "gutless, lacking power on hills". Heavily retouched photos or artists impressions were commonplace, depiction of things which could not be, or never were built, nothing unusual.

 

The purpose was to attract readers attention, tell a story they wanted to read and most importantly, maintain the good favour if the advertisers upon whom the economics of the publication depended.

[F-UnitMad]

Wasn't there a fairly recent "track plans" publication that tried to pretend you could fit Edinburgh Waverley into something like 12ft x 10ft? Some of the curves would have scaled to about 6inch radius, in OO, I seem to recall.

 

It's easy to make errors in trackplan drawings - heck I've even done it with one of my own layouts!! I swapped the positions of two points on the plan, which shortened a runround loop somewhat compared to reality. The whole layout only had 5 points - how hard could it be???

The layout itself is long gone, but I still have a copy of the trackplan drawing, & still cringe when I see it.

[Peter Kazmierczak]

Whilst the author might well provide a correct trackplan, the graphic artist at the magazine may redraw it (into their house style), leading to errors.

[rockershovel]

Track planning software concentrates the mind wonderfully, doesn't it?