|
|
Post by atsfan on Oct 16, 2014 18:30:36 GMT -8
I am in dream mode of future layout. The more I think, the less I want to include in it. Less track, fewer switches, less city and all that goes with detailing those, and less clutter.
But more scenery. My favorite train watching is in the wide open west. Where scenery dominates the track.
I think this plan will also make it easier for me to finish building it. In the past I would spend forever on industries, or cities, or trees, etc.
Also less to break and fewer derailments.
Just thoughts but I was wondering if anybody else has move to simplification in layout designs or concepts.
|
|
|
|
Post by emd16645 on Oct 17, 2014 2:22:53 GMT -8
When I get to building the layout Im planning, something I intend to stick to is to keep the bench work width to a minimum, for mainline trackage, I'm thinking in the 6" range. This minimizes the need for extensive scenery work between towns or industries. To give the depth needed to pull this off will require photo backdrops, but there are plenty that are commercially available and are also easy to make. Such a plan would virtually eliminate the need to plant trees or similar scenery elements. Another benefit would be easy access to the track, few if any long reaches across bench work to clean up a derailment.
|
|
|
|
Post by WP 257 on Oct 17, 2014 4:51:14 GMT -8
Yes I did and I'm generally speaking happy with what I did.
Kato track is outstanding, but the turnouts can leave something to be desired. When I removed two double ended passing sidings, I removed the electrical power drops I was also having.
My track plan is very simple (folded dogbone with one long trailing point siding) and I'm hoping to do a nice job on scenery (it is scenic'd but is not by any means complete--there's a lot to add).
I do tend to watch and "railfan" my own trains. That's what is fun for me. The scenic stuff gets expensive, too, so I'm kinda in a holding pattern there till I have more funds...
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 17, 2014 11:00:32 GMT -8
I am in dream mode of future layout. The more I think, the less I want to include in it. Less track, fewer switches, less city and all that goes with detailing those, and less clutter. But more scenery. My favorite train watching is in the wide open west. Where scenery dominates the track. I think this plan will also make it easier for me to finish building it. In the past I would spend forever on industries, or cities, or trees, etc. Also less to break and fewer derailments. Just thoughts but I was wondering if anybody else has move to simplification in layout designs or concepts. All good ideas. Layout design has evolved, back in the 50s people used to try to cram as much track into the available space as possible, as if max trackage was the goal. When I visit some clubs that were designed 20 or more years ago, I cringe at the spaghetti-ness of the track plan. In general, you should only see one "main" when looking at the scene. Some olde layouts stacked so much track up hillsides that it looked like a wedding cake. |
|
|
|
Post by canrailfan on Oct 17, 2014 11:14:03 GMT -8
I'm planning on doing the same when I start a new layout this winter. Bob Perrin's layout (in last Sunday's SPF thread) is an inspiration although I don't have anywhere near the space he has. Using hidden staging tracks will also be part of the new plan.
One of the advantages of starting off with more open-running space is that you can always cut in a switch and add an on-line industry at some point in the future. (The type and location of the industry may fill a gap in the operating plan that wasn't apparent in the beginning.)
I like your comment about the "scenery dominat[ing] the track." I have a location where a 6" wide shelf will have a single track main running between a 16" high rock face and a rocky river bed about 4" below track level (about 145 scale feet vertically). I'm looking forward to seeing a train pass through this scene.
David
|
|
|
|
Post by Brakie on Oct 17, 2014 11:44:13 GMT -8
To my mind less is best unless one like layouts that looks like a overturned bowl of spaghetti.
A switching layout jammed with track ends up one step below a time waster,ah,er,ahem time saver and the same applies to normal loop layouts that looks like those loop layouts you find in some layout books.
IMHO there is no need for playing here a track,there a track,everywhere a track track when designing a layout..
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 18, 2014 11:50:32 GMT -8
I've been trying to come up with a "less is more" track plan that has a mainline with 24" curves - and I just can't come up with anything useful.
|
|
|
|
Post by TBird1958 on Oct 18, 2014 12:00:53 GMT -8
I am in dream mode of future layout. The more I think, the less I want to include in it. Less track, fewer switches, less city and all that goes with detailing those, and less clutter. But more scenery. My favorite train watching is in the wide open west. Where scenery dominates the track. I think this plan will also make it easier for me to finish building it. In the past I would spend forever on industries, or cities, or trees, etc. Also less to break and fewer derailments. Just thoughts but I was wondering if anybody else has move to simplification in layout designs or concepts.
That's pretty much my line of thought, I want to do less, do it better, keep it focused (years, location etc) and reliable. Helper,UT to Soldier Summit, not many trees, not many structures, double track and lots of traffic. |
|
|
|
Post by wjstix on Oct 21, 2014 13:14:33 GMT -8
Even though I'm not a narrow-gauger, one thing that attracted me to those layouts (like in Narrow Gauge and Short Line Gazette) was that since there was a lot of scenery and not much track, those layouts always seemed more realistic...at least compared to the typical "spaghetti bowl" layout.
|
|
TA462
Junior Member
Posts: 88
|
Post by TA462 on Oct 21, 2014 13:34:27 GMT -8
I had this huge 20x40 monstrosity in my basement for awhile years ago when I first got into the hobby. Honestly it was overwhelming and I knew I was in way over my head. I basically cut it in half and added a L shaped extension. For me it was the perfect size now and I could focus on detailing everything. Sometimes smaller is better.
|
|
|
|
Post by lajrmdlr on Oct 22, 2014 4:33:46 GMT -8
Guess I'm lucky as my layout will be based on the Los Angeles Junction Ry. LAJ "invented" selective compression early on to cram as many industries as possible in the limited space available. Have attached the Horn Lead Switch Map as an example. And my version will only have around 6 out of the 12 industries being served when the map was made in 1971 (red ones for sure). The Horn industries modeled will be on a 2' x 6' module. Attachments:
|
|
|
|
Post by riogrande on Oct 22, 2014 4:58:06 GMT -8
Having grown up out west (hopefully to return some day) I much prefer western scenery. Of course one of the perks about modeling western is you can have less in a scene and it look like it should!
The layout I am working on due to small space will not have single track going through most of the scenes, but I do plan on modeling western Colorado/eastern Utah desert terrain.
|
|
