LayoutVision

PCR/SIGs Meeting Jan. 27-29

2012-01-08T15:37:00.000-08:00

The Bay Area is fortunate to have a "critical mass" of volunteers who create great model railroad experiences. The next is the annual NMRA-PCR / Layout Design SIG / Operations SIG weekend January 27-29 in Mountain View, CA. Always a fun and informative event!

Friday evening is a no-host dinner followed by layout tours, Saturday includes clinics and panel discussions during the day with layout tours in the evening, and Sunday offers operating sessions open to all levels of experience.

On Saturday, I'm again coordinating free 20-minute layout design and ops help sessions along with a number of volunteer help providers. I'll also be presenting a short clinic on the three railroads I am almost-but-not-quite-yet building.

Should be a great weekend, including a a new location in Mountain View on Saturday. Click this link for the details on the 2012 PCR/LDSIG/OpSIG weekend and to pre-register.

HO Logs and lots of Stripwood

2011-10-06T15:56:00.000-07:00

As I write in the October 2011 issue of Model-Railroad-Hobbyist magazine, a guiding philosophy can help turn a variety of interesting elements into a cohesive track plan. The owner's long-standing dream for this HO layout was "Believable scenery with interesting operations."

Scenic inspiration came from the former D&RGW's famed "High Line" in Colorado, the operating theme of logging was informed by the craftsman kits the owner was building, and the room presented a few challenges and opportunities.

Click here to see this HO trackplan in my Layout Design Gallery or read the original article in the October 2011 MRH.

Once again, I resorted to my old stand-by of a spiral peninsula with one central "blob". Hey, I use it a lot because it works! This created a walk-in track plan with more running length and adequate aisles. The increased running length helped provide the variation in elevations the owner desired while keeping mainline grades to less than 2.5%.

Returning often to the touchstone of believable scenery and interesting operations helped maintain focus and eliminate unworkable configurations.

One of the ideas I touched on in the MRH article is the unrealistic state of many designers' model railroad engine service areas. Often they just plunk down a few undersized rectangles and call it a day.

But watering, sanding and coaling facilities take up significant room and demand specific track relationships in actual modeling. Better to deal with these requirements "honestly" than to sketch-and-hope.

The layout owner is a talented craftsman kit builder and we worked with the footprints of some of his prize-winning structures to create featured scenes on the track plan. A layout that will look good and work well comes out of adhering to a guiding philosophy.

1 of 43

2011-09-22T15:20:00.000-07:00

It's always interesting to me to see where the track plans I've had published in Model Railroad Planning magazine will turn up next. When Kalmbach buys an article, they generally buy all rights, so the material can be used in another Kalmbach publication without involving the author again.

As an author, this doesn’t bother me at all with Kalmbach – the copyright terms of the author agreement are very clear. My designs have been re-published in special booklets offered to new subscribers or shrink-wrapped with regular magazines, in Kalmbach books, etc.

So I thought that perhaps one (or a few) of my model railroad track plans might be featured in the recently-published 43 Track Plans from the Experts. But the intrigue is in guessing which plans might be selected from roughly the last ten years of Model Railroad Planning.

While I was hoping for designs to be included that I believe are a bit more innovative (or at least different), such as the Oahu Railway multi-decker from MRP 2008 or the folding Alameda Belt Line switching layout from MRP 2003, my suspicion was that it would be one or more of the island-style track plans.

Which in the end, it was: the hollow-core-door-sized N scale Katy layout from MRP 2010. Certainly a layout that I and my custom client were happy with, but not breaking a lot of new ground.

The editor(s) added some meaningful comments and found a slightly more useful prototype photo (since I couldn't clear copyrights on the best photos). All in all, I'm happy to have even one plan in the book.

Publishing a book of past plans such as this is a balancing act. While there are some innovative designs, other plans may have been chosen because they come from well-known authors or had great artwork, even if these track plans aren't exactly pioneering in terms of design (or even buildable!).

I also found the tagline on the cover slightly amusing. It reads: "Plans from 4X8 feet to a giant 38X82 feet". But of course, my 30"X80" hollow core door plan is smaller than 4X8. I guess that it's always hard to resist promoting the "sacred sheet" 4X8.

But that's the nature of the publishing business – first, it has to sell! I'm happy to have had a track plan included and I think readers who haven't seen all of the original MRP issues will receive a good exposure to a variety of designs through this book.

Victim Mentality

2011-09-12T11:26:00.000-07:00

I'd been emailing with a potential client about a custom track planning project for a while. His vision was for a freelanced layout with a bit of everything, to be built with Kato Unitrack. No specific theme except to have fun and explore the hobby. So far, so good.

But then he began to have second thoughts. Basically his worries came about because he had "heard" that nitpickers and prototype modelers "don't like freelanced layouts or click track" and he didn't want to be criticized. Where had he "heard" that? Internet forums, of course.

Yes, the "Nitpickers pushed me down and took my lunch money" meme is alive and thriving on the Internet.

And pretty much only there.

Many of those posting about the "mean old nitpickers" have themselves never completed any layout, prototype or freelance, generic or specific. But they rave on about the sinister layout police who savage layout owners for failing to live up to some unwritten set of rules.

I recognize that playing the victim has powerful appeal in today's society. In model railroading, it helps some excuse years of inaction. It helps others gain some Internet fame and notoriety (trivial and childish as it is) through hundreds (or thousands) of whining posts.

And it's pretty much totally false.

In fact, I've seen just the opposite first hand multiple times. On one specific occasion I remember from years ago, I happened to be on a layout tour with some very well-known and highly-skilled prototype modelers. One of the layouts on the tour was a freelanced design built with Atlas SnapTrack. To be honest, the layout didn't offer much in visual appeal or operating interest to most, though it suited the owner's interests. But the experienced modelers visiting still took a few minutes to offer a couple of thoughts and thank the owner for being open.

No, the experienced folks didn't spend an hour there and I'm sure it wasn't their favorite layout of the day. But they were courteous, respectful and pleasant. Just as 99% of modelers would be.

The "evil nitpickers" rants on the Internet have done much more harm to potential layout builders than have any actual nitpickers. So forum trolls, please. I recognize that it’s asking way too much for you to be accurate or knowledgeable. But maybe you could at least some up with something fresh.

[By the way, the fellow I was emailing with went forward with the design project, actually built it with Unitrack, and is having a great time. Meanwhile, the forum trolls are … not.]

A "Layout Vision" Fulfilled

2011-08-28T17:10:00.000-07:00

Whew! I'm still recovering from the Sacramento X2011 West NMRA National Convention. It was fun to meet a number of blog readers in real life, along with the special treat of meeting some past custom layout design clients in person.

I also enjoyed presenting the Layout Design Bootcamp again with Layout Design SIG President Seth Neumann. Unfortunately, we had been placed into one of the smallest meeting rooms at the convention center, so it was standing room only for four hours! Thanks to those who hung in there with us.

It was a hectic week. When I returned home, my wife asked, "Well, did you have fun?"

"I don't know, I'll have to check my notes," I answered. Yep, it was that kind of week.

One of my favorite parts of any convention is the layout tours and I saw a lot of interesting layouts, large and small. But it was especially rewarding to visit one layout in particular that had been built from one of my plans.

Many of my custom layout designs are under construction by clients, but this one was unique in that it was constructed expertly and (relatively) quickly by custom model railroad builder Rick Fortin for his clients. I had the opportunity to develop the track plan based on an original design by Dan Murdock, the Metro Belt and Terminal, published in the April 2001 Model Railroader magazine.

To meet Rick's clients' space and interests, we mirror-imaged the design and added substantial hidden staging and a large working yard. You can see Dan Murdock's original plan, my adaptation, and photos in my Layout Design Gallery.

It was a unique pleasure to see the track plan beautifully brought to life by Rick's modeling talents. The metal fabricator scene, in particular, is just the way I had seen it in my mind.

Thanks to Rick Fortin and to his clients for allowing me to contribute to a terrific finished layout.

Countdown to X2011 and Bootcamp

2011-06-25T14:49:00.000-07:00

I'm looking forward to the upcoming NMRA X2011 Convention. A unique "Advance Section" kicks off in the Bay Area next weekend. And then the main convention begins in earnest on July 3rd in Sacramento.

One of the highlights for me will be presenting the LDSIG Layout Design Bootcamp with Seth Neumann bright and early Monday morning July 4 at 8:00 AM. It's a 4-hour session, but drop by for as much of it as you like.

Members of the Layout Design SIG (including me) will also be offering short free personalized layout design consultations during the convention in the SIGs room at various hours. Stop by in person to sign-up.

Hope to meet a few blog readers there!

By the way, posts to the blog have been very few this year. I've been behind on custom track planning projects due to some family needs. And I've been reluctant to blog while clients are waiting.

But since this level of schedule disruption may be the "new normal" for a while, I'll try to drop in for the occasional short blog post more often in the coming months while still spending most of my working time on client projects.

Thanks to my understanding and patient clients who have tolerated unexpected and unpredictable delays.

Relaxed and Realistic GN Ry. in HO

2011-03-15T12:33:00.000-07:00

We often approach model railroad design projects with the goal of fitting in just as many layout elements as possible. And sometimes that's the right approach, potentially giving us more interest in a given space.

But it was refreshing recently when my client gave me very different instructions: include only about half the elements typical of a roughly 400 square foot space in HO. Rather than packing in more towns, he wanted to use the space for broader curves, more realistic scenes, and a longer run between elements.

Click here for the design gallery view of the plan

The resulting design suggests nicely the wide-open-spaces of the upper Midwest along the Great Northern Railway's lines in North Dakota and Minnesota. Designed in sections, the layout can move to a new room without starting from scratch. And it should offer plenty of operating interest and scenic potential.

The full story of the concept and design of this layout was featured in the February 2011 issue of Model Railroad Hobbyist mediazine, always free for download on the web. You can also see the layout in my online model railroad layout design gallery.

"Relaxed and realistic" was definitely fun for a change!

The Chicken, the Egg, and the Sacred Sheet

2011-02-09T11:17:00.000-08:00

No, this is not a joke about the three of them walking into a bar …

I'm always pleased to have an article in Model Railroad Planning magazine. The magazine looks great and inevitably has a number of interesting articles. I must confess to having slightly mixed emotions about my contribution to the 2011 issue, however.

It's an HO 4X8 switching layout based on Linn Westcott's Famous "Switchman's Nightmare" shelf switcher. I've published a similar HO 4X8 version on my website.

In the article draft, I tried to make the point (as I do over and over) that the HO standard gauge 4X8 is not the ideal layout form-factor. But combined as it was with about a dozen other 4X8s published in the last few months in MRP and Model Railroader magazine, a newcomer to model railroading could be forgiven if he comes to the conclusion that experts believe that the HO 4X8 is the perfect layout format.

Some at commercial model railroad publishers (though not all, to be sure) feel that they need HO 4X8s because "readers want them". But from whence does that desire spring (beyond the fear of cutting wood)? Is it because there's an innate human longing for HO curves that are too tight and awkward monoliths of benchwork that dominate a mid-sized room?

Or is it because these newcomers are fed a steady diet of HO 4X8s from books and magazines? Which is the cause -- and which is the effect?

To their designers' credit, some of the recently-published 4X8s are pretty interesting, especially those that are not HO standard gauge. But of the good ol' "Sacred Sheet" HO 4X8s published in the last couple of months, there are number with nearly impossibly steep grades that start as abruptly as a hockey stick, overly tight curves, and the usual litany of HO 4X8 woes.

That's not doing a hobby newcomer any favors, in my humble opinion.

Look, I recognize that HO 4X8s are popular. Of the over 24,000 unique visitors to my website last month, nearly half came looking for HO 4X8s. But hopefully the ones who stayed and read more than a page or two (and there were lots, thankfully) got some idea that there are HO alternatives that look better, work better, and are a more efficient use of space.

It’s just a shame that newcomers don't always receive the same exploration of alternatives in everything that they read.

In the end, some HO 4X8 track plan was probably going to be published in the pages my article occupied in MRP 2011. I certainly do appreciate the opportunity to include my design -- one that at least makes some effort to mitigate the Sacred Sheet's well-known shortcomings while providing an engaging operating experience.

Layout Design Step-by-Step

2011-01-03T15:19:00.000-08:00

After a long hiatus, the model railroad Layout Design Special Interest Group (LDSIG) has published the latest issue of the Layout Design Journal (LDJ).

LDJ-40 (Fall 2010) has a variety of interesting articles by a number of authors. My contribution is "Layout Design Step-by-Step", a description of the Conceptual, Structural, and Detail Phases which I think comprise one good approach to model railroad layout design ("Draw no line before it is time").

The article includes some of the same concepts I will present in the four-hour Layout Design Bootcamp with Seth Neumann and the LDSIG at the Sacramento X2011 NMRA Convention this Summer. You can get a feeling for the LDJ article and the Bootcamp by downloading the Layout Design Bootcamp notes and references.

LDJ-40 is now listed on the LDSIG publications back-order page, available for $8.00 plus shipping.

The Layout Design Journal is a great benefit of LDSIG membership and I'm glad to be taking over as Editor with the next issue.

Steel Book Back in Print

2010-12-05T09:38:00.000-08:00

The late Dean Freytag's book The History, Making and Modeling of Steel is back in print as a limited edition, available through Walthers. You can read my earlier post about this very useful book here.

Playing with the Scioto Valley

2010-11-20T13:11:00.000-08:00

My N scale multi-deck NYC Scioto Valley Division layout has been incorporated as a sample layout in the TrainPlayer program as one of their Fall 2010 featured layouts. [The other featured layout is also terrific: Vince Lee's compact Erie RR 28th Street Terminal layout from the July 2010 Railroad Model Craftsman magazine.]

TrainPlayer allows users to operate virtual layouts on their own computers, including a large number of published layouts. Users can also "draw" TrainPlayer tracks over any image or in their own designs.

It's a neat program and a few of my layouts have already been included in the software. It's always interesting to see how technology is broadening the model railroading hobby.

Double the Fun

2010-09-11T10:27:00.000-07:00

It's always a pleasure to have a client's custom model railroad design project presented in the commercial press. This month it's a double treat as two projects are featured in the September/October '10 issue of Model Railroad Hobbyist mediazine.

One article describes a substantial multi-deck N scale design focused on the New York Central, Pennsylvania Railroad, and Norfolk and Western in Ohio. In order to include everything on the client's wishlist, we resorted to some significant proto-freelancing. But the result is a very engaging layout.

The design includes a substantial yard, river port area, and an extensive steel mill area based primarily on the Walthers line of kits. Developing this design provided a reminder of how well N scale works to achieve a large number of operating elements comfortably in a moderate space (less than 200 square feet).

The other article is not a full custom project, but instead features my client's compact HO scale Central Vermont Railway design on which I consulted. This was a great example of what I call "Compressive Selection".

The client's original layout inspiration was the famous White River Junction, Vermont area, but I felt this was simply going to be too much of a good thing to fit into his restricted space in a high-rise apartment.

With some back-and-forth discussion, we were able to choose nearby locations of a more modelgenic scope which still incorporated many of his desired features. Then we worked together to tune his layout design for the greatest scenic and operating potential in the available space.

Both projects were fun to work on, with great clients, and it's a pleasure to see each of them featured in MRH.

My recent on-line listening has turned up two artists with fresh takes on very American musical styles -- though both hail from Sweden!
The Langhorns are a Swedish band playing classic instrumental Surf music that sounds straight from the beach. Which, strictly speaking I guess could still be true -- though the beach is somewhat nearer the Arctic Circle than most surf spots. The tunes from their CD Langhorns are melodic and easy-going.

The production is sometimes a little rough (and I might have eschewed some of the ambient sounds), but it's still a fun listen. Steve Leonard's (The Pyramids) classic surf tune "Penetration" receives a respectful cover here, showing that the lads from Lund have an appreciation of the past masters. But there are also plenty of original tunes which show the Langhorns to have creativity of their own.

As unusual as Surf music from Scandinavia might seem, how about Bluegrass and old-timey tunes? From an all-woman band -- with a cello! Sweden's Abalone Dots are playing dates in the US now and into the Fall. I heard their music somewhere on-line and then was a bit surprised to discover that they're not from Nashville, but from Stockholm! ("Abalone dots", by the way, refer to the fret markers on stringed instruments such as guitars).

The album Traveler is a great introduction to the Abalone Dots sound, which includes shimmering three- and four-part vocal harmonies. The group incorporates a very traditional Bluegrass feel into their playing and repertoire, which I guess speaks to the universality of music!

Summer Update

2010-09-02T13:43:00.000-07:00

I'm looking forward to fall and the unofficial restart of the model railroading season. Sorry for the paucity of blog posts, between some family issues and the dreaded kitchen remodel, it's been something of a lost summer. This is one year that I'm very happy that summer is almost over!

Thanks go out to my patient clients, who have been extremely gracious. I've finished some very interesting track plan projects recently and more are in store for later this year, including two designs focused on some of the ultimate railfan spots in the US. Should be interesting!

The Layout Design Bootcamp I presented at the NMRA Milwaukee Convention with Seth Neumann and the Layout Design SIG seemed to be well-received -- thanks to those of you who attended and stopped by afterwards to say hello. Readers may download notes and references from the session at the above link.

Portions of the Layout Design Bootcamp will also be included in the Layout Design SIG's Layout Design Journal #40, to be published later in the fall. I've also returned to the Journal as editor beginning with LDJ-41.

And as the household belongings slowly recede from the garage and the kitchen contents from the home office, I hope to actually work in some actual modeling later in the year. I know, I know, you'll believe it when you see it … me, too!

A Free Lunch is a Stolen Lunch

2010-06-15T08:30:00.000-07:00

I notice a trend lately of folks taking advantage of free trial offers of model railroad CAD software to plan their layouts. And I use the phrase "taking advantage" literally.

These folks are using a number of workarounds to avoid paying for the software. I'm not talking about open source or manufacturer-sponsored software such as XtrkCAD or Atlas' RTS, this is software from entrepreneur developers trying to make a go of it.

And I'm also not talking about a try-before-buy situation: these forum posters make it clear that they never plan to purchase the product (thanks to their "clever" workaround).

I recognize that there is a prevailing view, from music to movies to software, that it's just plain old-fashioned to pay for someone's creative output. Just download, man, otherwise you’re a sucker.

But these are small companies or individuals creating and marketing CAD programs. All the folks who so proudly trumpet their workaround techniques are stealing intellectual property from those hard-working developers (and encouraging others to do the same).

So just a thought, if you "love" the software so much and "use it all the time", please pay for it and support the people who've done the work for you. Or these products will disappear from being loved (and starved of funds) to death.

I've been in a bit of a blues/rock mood lately and discovered a great album on Pandora that I had completely missed when it was released in 1993. Paul Rodgers is one of rock's great voices, probably best-known for his work with Free and Bad Company. But his solo album Muddy Water Blues: A Tribute to Muddy Waters is an amazing listening experience.

It's a collection of Muddy Waters tunes with an all-star cast of guitarists, from Buddy Guy to David Gilmour to a mesmerizing Jeff Beck. Blues purists beware, these are not "authentic" covers of the original tunes, but completely new approaches that are more modern and rock-influenced in style.

Rodgers is in fine voice throughout and the guitarists are certainly inspired by the material and opportunity. Apparently the original record company folded around the time this album was released and it never received much attention, but it's certainly worth a purchase now that it is back in print -- please don't steal it!

(By the way, a gentleman named Philip Snyder has done an excellent track-by-track review of the recording on Amazon.com. Be sure to check it out if you visit the Amazon page.)

Track Plan Book Survey Results

2010-05-25T11:58:00.000-07:00

Ever so slowly, I am building up chapters of what could be a track plan book of my custom layout designs along the lines of John Armstrong titles such as Twenty Custom Designed Track Plansand 18 Tailor Made Model Railroad Track Plans(Kalmbach, each out of print).

Please note that I am definitely not presuming to place myself on Armstrong's level by any means, merely using the format of these books as a point of reference. They have always been favorites of mine.

This book would join currently available single-author track plan books such as Iain Rice' Shelf Layouts for Model Railroads, Bernie Kempinski's Mid-Size Track Plans for Realistic Layouts, and Lance Mindheim's self-published 8 Realistic Track Plans For A Spare Roomand 8 Realistic Track Plans For Small Switching Layouts.

While I would like for my book to be distributed by a major publisher, I recognize that this may not be possible and I may self-publish in the end.

I would expect that the book would contain fifteen to twenty track plans, along with perhaps an additional chapter or two on some design principles. Each track plan would be accompanied by text describing the real or imagined prototype and explaining the design. I am looking for your input on what might interest you. (And of course, if the first book is somewhat successful, there's more where those plans came from!)
Survey Results

Thanks to all of you who took the time to participate in the track plan book survey, which is now closed. There were 99 or more votes for each question, so I'm very pleased with the response. Here are the results, in case anyone is curious.

Would you purchase a book of custom model railroad track plans as described?
60% Probably yes
33% Possibly
3% Probably no
2% Definitely no

Nice to know that the majority is interested! Of course, this only includes folks interested enough to respond to the poll, so there is significant sampling bias.

What should this book cost at retail?
18% $20-25
51% $15-20
10% Less than $15
18% Depends on content and quality

I thought this might be the "sweet spot". This might be more challenging in self-publishing, but it's good to know.

What about layout sizes in the track plan book?
55% A mix of layout sizes in one book is fine
45% Prefer separate books for large and small layouts

This one surprised me a bit. My favorite track plan books include a range of sizes, but that wasn't a strong preference among respondents.

Would track plan art similar to that on my Layout Design Gallery web pages be acceptable, or do you expect more in a book?
42% Layout Design Gallery art is fine
43% Book artwork must be better
14% Not sure / Don't know

I did not know what to expect with this question, but obviously I will consider the need for "prettier" track plan art in any self-publishing effort.

How do you feel about reprinting my previously-published track plans in this book?
57% A few previously-published plans would be OK
36% No, the book should be all-new material
7% Not sure / Don't know

This result was interesting to me. If the book is released through a publisher, they may choose to include some previously-published plans. For a self-publishing effort, I see that I might want to include only a very few previously-published plans that are particularly illustrative of a general concept.

I also appreciate those of you who took the time to contact me directly regarding this poll, whether the comments were positive or negative. I was a little confused by the one fellow who wrote to tell me how much he hated my first book and he would be sure to tell his friends not to buy my next book.

Unless he somehow received my teacher's copy of The Pesky Puppy, which I wrote and illustrated as a class assignment in the 4th grade, I think he must have me confused with someone else.

And, no, The Pesky Puppy is not in my plans to publish.

One Track Mind

2010-05-17T11:16:00.000-07:00

I've been doing quite a bit of work on operating ideas for my custom track planning clients lately. I didn't realize how focused I had become in my thinking until I stopped by the dry cleaners today with clothes in one hand and a laundry ticket in the other.

"Some to pick up and some to set out", I told the clerk.

… the quizzical look on his face told me he's not a model railroader.

Canadian Prairie Crossing

2010-05-03T09:45:00.000-07:00

My latest article in the commercial press describes an interesting custom HO scale layout design consultation project. It's found in the May/June 2010 issue of Model Railroad Hobbyist mediazine (always available free at the preceding link).

The client's concept, space, and even basic footprint had been well thought-out: a pair of proto-freelanced Canadian branch lines crossing in the Alberta prairie, with grain elevators the primary signature industries.

His original footprint ideas were for an around-the-room arrangement with a moveable benchwork section. Although that was certainly workable in the roughly 11 1/2' X 15' space in HO, I always like to at least try for a walk-in footprint. In this case, we were just a little shy on space and the client's original footprint was the better choice.

Click the image to see this plan in my layout design gallery

The MRH article includes some great photos of the region, as well as the track plan and a bit of description on the track planning process and trade-offs. There are even a couple of photos of the benchwork, which is well underway. It was an interesting project and I hope that readers will enjoy the article.

More fun, no puzzle!

2010-04-18T12:39:00.000-07:00

Readers who have visited my website will already know that I am no fan of switching puzzles such as the "classic" Timesaver or Inglenook. While they carry a railroad theme, too often the artificial constraints of these puzzles amount to no more than moving an empty slot around – like a sliding block puzzle.

More authentic operating challenges can be developed in small spaces by using the real-life challenges of "sure spots", seasonality, shifts, etc., as I mention in my web pages.

Sure spots, in particular, are often overlooked by newcomers to model railroad operations. Sure spots are specific locations on a track where cars are to be delivered. This might be a specific loading door, a grain dump, a discharge spout, etc. So with sure spots, a single track may have several switching positions. I used this to good effect on my small N scale switching layout and on many other layout designs large and small.

A good example of this on the prototype and a compact model is found on Jack Hill's blog page.

At first glance, this looks a bit like the two-turnout, three-track Inglenook puzzle. But two things make it different and realistic: enough length to switch out the cars efficiently; and sure spots for placement of commodities within specific cars.

The author is apparently a real life railroader, and his approach to modeling in a small space (in O scale, no less!) is to build on these prototypical challenges for engaging operations.

Sure spots can even add variety to a seemingly generic set of cars. Real-life railroader Jim Lincoln wrote about such a situation in describing a modern corn syrup transloading terminal in Model Railroad Planning 2010. Different grades and types of corn syrup in different cars must be switched in and out of the facility from a nearby yard. Similar activities take place with plastic pellets, chemicals, and grain in the modern era.

The concepts of sure spots, seasonality, and shifts (among others) can make any small layout more interesting than just another switching puzzle. Breweries, paper mills, auto plants, and many other real-life facilities can be themes for interesting switching challenges without artificial puzzle frustration.

Model Railroad Aphorisms

2010-03-30T12:10:00.000-07:00

In talking to clients and trying to help folks on forums, a couple of pithy comments have been springing to mind recently:

It's no fun if the trains don't run.

and

If not drawn to scale, it’s liable to fail.

The first speaks to the importance of reliability in considering design options, the second to the tendency some have for flights of fancy about what can actually fit in a given space.

Hokey? Yeah, I guess. But how many misguided newbie layout design train wrecks (literally and figuratively) might have been avoided with the liberal application of these two ideas?

Status through Standards?

2010-03-22T13:06:00.000-07:00

A thread on one of the Internet forums reminded me of an interaction I had with a fellow a couple of years ago. His room was just under 10'X10', HO scale, double-track mains, transition era. Not a huge space, but workable.

Then he told me about his standards: only #8 turnouts would be permissible, along with a 36" minimum radius. His reasoning? It would be more like a "real railroad" and he wanted his layout to be recognized as uniquely realistic.

Okey-dokee. But one doesn't have to be a very experienced designer to see that there is darned little straight track left after placing 36" circles around a 10X10 foot space.

I suggested modulating his standards -- perhaps one scene with broad radii and turnouts and then using more compact standards elsewhere. Nope, that just wouldn't do for him. We both recognized that I wasn't the right person for the job and he continued his quest for a designer who could alter the space-time continuum.

Layout design standards should not be status symbols. Broad curves and #8 or larger turnouts look great – but in the more modest spaces typical of most model railroads, they create the need to significantly reduce the number and size of other layout elements possible.

If reducing operating potential or the number of railfan scenes in exchange for broader curves and turnouts is an acceptable trade-off, more power to you. But as John Armstrong noted, too large a minimum radius can be just as deleterious to a design as a minimum radius that is too small.

Standards should follow the concept, purpose, and space available for a layout, not lead them. That's why I hate to see folks with more modest spaces declaring #8 or #10 turnouts as their sine qua non even before developing their overall vision for the layout.

Kidding Yourself

2010-03-04T11:12:00.000-08:00

I work on more layout designs and track plans than most people -- dozens and dozens, in fact, in the last six years. These plans are for many different spaces, concepts, and scales. And yet, I'm still sometimes surprised when I start a new project at how little of what my clients and I have conceptualized will actually fit -- when drawn to scale.

Curves, turnouts, straight sections to ease S-curves, horizontal and vertical easements, and on and on. Each of these takes more space than I would like. And certainly more than most people think.

That's why I just shake my head when I see what some people post in forums. They prattle on for months (or years!) about the fabulous layout design on which they are working: Steel mills, division point yards, car floats, auto plants. And all in 10'X10' in HO.

OK, that's a slight exaggeration, but only slight. Bottom line, if you haven't rendered the major elements to scale in some fashion, you're kidding yourself. That can be CAD, paper templates, or a to-scale sketching technique like John Armstrong's squares. Any of these can provide a quick (and usually sobering) reality check.

But these empire builders carry on, regaling their rapt forum audiences with tales of how great it's going to be. And they often illustrate their posts with photos of clutter-filled corners, stacks of unbuilt Blue Box kits, and horizontal "benchwork" surfaces piled high with soda cans, stacks of magazines, and other detritus.

Now there is a time, early in the design process, when it's a very good idea not to be constrained by scale. However, that's an early conceptual phase and reality must eventually be reckoned with.

So if you've been talking about your "design" for a couple of years, it's time to face the facts. If you haven't yet drawn your space and the major elements to scale, you're not working on a layout design; you're working on the idea of working on a layout design.

The Aqua Velvets' CD Nomad has been in heavy rotation lately at LayoutVision headquarters. A different take on modern instrumental surf music, with many of the tunes having a slightly darker tone (surf noir, if you will). Just for variety and whimsy, some other styles are mixed in, including what sounds like a rumba and a bit of reggae flavor. The playing is crisp and toneful, without the speed-for-speed's-sake that burdens some instro surf music.

And there are plenty of conventional surf sounds, too, played with a respect for the tradition but an eagerness to stretch a bit musically. The kind of surf music that might make you remember fondly those sunny days at Hermosa Beach -- even if you've never been out of Nebraska.

What He Said

2010-02-22T16:39:00.000-08:00

I had an interesting project with a client a year or so ago. He was picturing a rectangular layout in a rectangular space that allowed only a minimum of space for rectangular aisles on three sides. Sound familiar?

We had a lot of discussion on the layout footprint and we were able to encourage him to accept a more "organic" shape. In this case, sort of a "boomerang" or "kidney" outline that fit into one corner of the room.

The curving benchwork gave him more room for construction, operation, and maintenance. And I thought it certainly a lot more interesting visually than yet another monolithic rectangle layout.

Although he had to work out some interesting challenges in construction (for example, adding a third L-girder a la Linn Westcott), my client reports that construction is well along; track is laid and wiring is underway.

And how does he feel now about that curvilinear benchwork? In his own words, "… it looks a lot better than a roundy-roundy rectangle!"

[Watch for the layout plan story in a future issue of the commercial press …]

The Double (Track) Cross

2010-02-19T08:48:00.000-08:00

For the majority of readers who visit this blog (thanks, by the way), this post is of no particular use.

But I see this error over and over again on user-posted track plans, so if it helps only one or two folks before they permanently fasten down their track, it's worth it.

The top configuration in the drawing above is often seen on newcomers' double-track ovals and other areas where double tracks curve into a set of crossovers.

Because the tighter inner end curve feeds directly into an opposing crossover, it creates a possibly troublesome S-curve, especially when shoving longer cars through. The alternative arrangement on the bottom of the drawing offers the same routing flexibility but creates much gentler S-curves.

Note that the same problem can develop when newcomers place an off-the-shelf double-crossover too close to a tight curve, not realizing that one route creates a significant S-curve.

Yeah, I know it's kind of a basic point -- thanks for indulging me.

Does this yard make me look fat?

2010-02-12T11:32:00.000-08:00

Some questions are basically unanswerable; the stereotypical classic is when your spouse asks, "Do these pants make me look fat?"

I have been reminded of these types of unanswerable questions in the last few weeks on various Internet forums. Folks post a track plan for a yard (often a simple mechanical transcription of one of John Armstrong's plans from Track Planning for Realistic Operation). Then they ask, "Is this a good yard plan?"

I dunno. Maybe. Maybe not.

There are quite a few facts not yet in evidence. Where is this yard located in relation to staging, junctions, branches, and other yards (if any)? How many trains will this yard serve in a session? In which direction will most trains run? Will this yard originate or terminate trains? How many trains? What types of trains? How much classification is needed versus simply block swaps? What era?

Without the answers to these and other questions, there's really no way to make an accurate judgment about the suitability of any yard design for a specific layout.

Of course, this doesn't stop the self-proclaimed forum experts from adding their two cents, advising various additions and changes that may (or may not) improve that yard's function in a specific layout.

While the classic Armstrong designs are better than 98+% of what most modelers dream up on their own, I hate to see this kind of unanswerable yard design question receiving so many pat (and patently incorrect) answers.

The right answer ("It depends, let's look at the rest of your layout design and your operations concept.") won't satisfy the typical immediate-gratification help-seekers -- but it is the reality of plausible, efficient, and engaging yard design.

I've been enjoying the Guitar Central stream on Live 365. The stream features a number of my favorite "guitar heroes" such as Joe Satriani, Steve Vai, and Steve Morse. Most of it is pretty heavily tilted toward the hard rock genre, but there are a few mellower tunes mixed in. Rock on, dudes!

Plans of Steel

2010-02-06T10:43:00.000-08:00

Over the years, I've had a few requests for layout designs that included some elements of the steel industry. While I have gleaned enough from back issues of the Railroad Industry SIG's publications and articles published in the commercial press to do a decent job, a couple of recent projects have demanded a more intense focus on the steel industry.

So I'm really grateful that the NMRA arranged for the reprinting of Dean Freytag's The History, Making and Modeling of Steel. It also helps that the book is very focused on the Walthers steel industry models in HO scale and N scale, since most of my clients want to at least start with these kits as a basis for their modeling.

(Between the time I started writing this blog entry and today, I discover that the book is sold out at the NMRA -- sorry about that. Perhaps interested readers will be able to find it from other sources or through inter-library loan.)

One of the nice things about Freytag's approach in the book is that he offers a lot of variations. Whether the modeler's preference is for detailed prototype replication or something more casual, lots of space dedicated to the steel industry or just a corner of the layout, Freytag offers useful advice for all. And he offers these suggestions in a positive and encouraging way that many modelers will find motivational.

Another very helpful part of the book is its focus on explaining in some (although not excruciating) detail the steel making process. Even this modest amount of background makes obvious the flaws in many steel-oriented published track plans.

I understand Bernie Kempinski has a book on the steel industry in the publication process and I'm sure that will be a good resource as well. But I wanted to take a moment to acknowledge Dean Freytag's excellent scholarship and spot-on writing tone, perfect for the modeler. Hopefully the book will become more readily available again.

I've written before about Allman Brothers member and recent Eric Clapton sideman Derek Trucks. I've been enjoying the Derek Trucks Band's most recent album, Already Free. Although the jazz and world music elements are still evident in Trucks' fabulous slide guitar sound, this album seems to me to have more blues and rock influence. Whether it's the easy acoustic shuffle that phases into a driving electric rock riff in "Down in the Flood" or the greasy slide that powers "Get What you Deserve", many of the tunes show a bit more muscle this time out.

Also welcome to my ears are the vocal contributions of Clapton bandmate Doyle Bramhall II (who also wrote and produced some songs on the album) and Trucks' talented wife Susan Tedeschi. While I enjoy regular vocalist Mike Mattison, I find the variety of vocal styles really accents the wide range of Trucks' playing in this, my favorite Derek Trucks album to date.

MRP 2010 -- The "Lost Photos"

2010-02-01T12:41:00.000-08:00

I am very pleased to have two of my layout designs featured in Model Railroad Planning 2010. The first track plan is part of a very interesting article on the Richmond Pacific Railroad (RPR) by lead author Bill Kaufman.

The RPR was the subject of our Layout Design Challenge at the Bay Area SIG Meet in 2006. Different designers prepared versions of the RPR (or its predecessor Parr Terminal RR) for presentation and discussion at the meeting, in one of three defined areas. The MRP article combines a discussion of today's RPR with a number of those layout designs and a brief description of each by the designer.

My own contribution is a portable N scale switching layout based on the Parr Terminal and sized to fit on two standard folding banquet tables. Editor Tony Koester and the team at Kalmbach did a great job of turning a slightly clumsy collection of materials into a well-presented article.

For my second article ("Dallas on a Door") … well, let's just say that not all articles go even that smoothly. The compact N scale design captures key elements of the Missouri-Kansas-Texas ("The Katy" or M-K-T) in downtown Dallas on a hollow core door in N scale. Neat prototype, great client, nifty compact switching design. So far, so good.

But finding photos to illustrate the article proved to be much more difficult than expected. There were plenty of images on-line (like the one to the right). But locating photographers, clearing copyrights, and obtaining high-quality versions of the images proved daunting.

In the end, Kalmbach had to substitute some on-file material to help illustrate the article. Frustrating! (Now, I'm sure it's not just me that Editor Koester is writing about in his MRP 2010 editorial when he admonishes prospective authors about having their photos lined up before submitting. At least, I hope it's not just me!)

Anyway, since the material is available for linking on the web, I've prepared a web page on my site that has some great photos of the area that I hope will be a fine complement to the article.

Oh, and sorry about that, Tony!

Track Plan Triage

2010-01-12T12:05:00.000-08:00

For about the last year, I have been working on a web-based introduction to track planning and layout design. Because this is a low priority and I've been busy with clients' projects, it may be another year (or more!) before it's published.

But as part of this effort, I've been thinking more about what newcomers to the hobby and to layout design are really asking for when they pop up on forums and elsewhere looking for help. (I'm talking about absolute newcomers here, not folks who've been around the hobby for a while and have learned about their own preferences, even if they don't yet have a layout.)

What makes a layout interesting varies

Like many others, my tendency is to try to help these complete newbies understand what makes a layout more engaging in the long run and explain why an oval with one siding and two spurs may soon prove tedious. As I've said before, I've seen a lot of these "Plywood Pacifics" gathering dust in a corner of the garage or basement after their builders abandoned them due to an excess of boredom and a shortage of fun.

My take-away is this: For many people, there needs to be more than just the most basic layout to offer interest and challenge to make the hobby rewarding in the long term. So my advice to newcomers has always been oriented toward pushing them in the direction of more potential and flexibility in a layout selection or the layout design process.

But I must recognize that not everyone needs the long term challenge of a layout designed for purposeful operations or even realistic scenery. Some people really do want to watch a couple of trains orbit around and around. Maybe occasionally build a new train in the yard or drop off a car here and there, but mostly just watch trains running round and round.

"No, more operation"

This became even clearer to me a few months ago when a fellow emailed me asking about "adding more operation" to one of the layouts in my layout design gallery. He is a friend of a friend, so I invested some time in suggesting adding more staging, or looking at additional car-spotting challenge with "sure spots".

But he seemed puzzled by my suggestions. "No," he said, "what I want is more operation -- more trains running at once." Then the light went on for me. When I suggested that we add a second main-line route so that he could have two trains orbiting simultaneously, he was thrilled and happily went off to build.

Track plan "triage"

So perhaps what's needed when we offer advice and suggestions to an absolute newcomer is to do a sort of triage on the request. Somehow we need to determine which requesters really will be happy in the long term with two trains running laps like obsessive-compulsive Olympians and which ones are asking for that only because they've never been exposed to the more engaging alternatives.

Some folks (probably a small minority, but maybe not) simply need to be pointed toward a decent multi-loop plan, offered a brief description of the more interesting alternatives for future reference, and then encouraged to go forth and orbit. Weighing these happy loopers down with discussions of staging, operations, and LDEs is probably not helping them enjoy the hobby the way they wish to enjoy it.

Others, whose interest may be piqued by opportunities for realistic scenes and/or purposeful operations, should be encouraged to look beyond the simple ovals and dogbones for a layout design that will offer more long-term involvement.

That process of triage, of quickly sorting the different help-seekers from one another, is the challenge -- one I haven't yet fully thought through. But perhaps all of us who offer advice to newcomers should try to be more sensitive to where these newbies are coming from and to whence they aspire. One size does not fit all.

Black Diamonds and Beer

2010-01-06T14:20:00.000-08:00

My latest article in the commercial press is a track plan for a modern-era shortline in N scale. The Schuylkill Haven Railroad is a proto-freelanced modern-day anthracite hauler in east-central Pennsylvania.

The model layout is inspired by the real-life regional railroad Reading & Northern (RBMN). Proto-freelancing offered some welcome flexibility in combining attractive elements from the good-sized regional into the available space.

The track plan, photos, and a description of the design are found in the January/February 2010 issue of Model Railroad Hobbyist media-zine, always free for download here. View the track plan in my Design Gallery.

The design is based on a hybrid loop-to-oval out-and-back schematic, with key industries (coal tipple and truck dump, a plastics manufacturer, and a large brewery) located on branches from the main continuous running track. The RBMN operates tourist passenger service on some parts of its system, so that's also an option for some variety.

My client was already wisely looking at along-the-wall designs (rather than rectangles) when he contacted me, so the final design makes great use of the layout space. It was a fun project to develop with him and it's great to see it "in print" in MRH.

Theory vs. Practice #1 -- Yard Leads

2010-01-01T17:48:00.000-08:00

The first in an occasional series of postings on what Internet blowhards say vs. what has actually been found to work. [Many of these "experts" haven't built their layout yet, of course, so they are free to opine without the inconvenient reality of experience.]

Theory: Many real-life railroad yards did not have separate yard leads, so they don't belong on model yards. Anyone who uses yard leads is simply following what other modelers have done like a bunch of brainless lemmings.

Practical experience: After one has helped build layouts, design layouts, and operated on many layouts, one will observe that most model railroaders run much larger numbers of trains in a given period of time through a given physical plant than would the real-life railroad. Yard leads are thus a concession to this density of traffic, necessary to keep these high levels of traffic flowing through yards and onto our always-too-short main lines.

The presence of yard leads on many successful layouts is an indication of their utility, not a case of mindless lock-step copying.

Verdict: Except for very low-density one- or two-train-per-day branch lines and terminal switching layouts, yard leads are often worth considering to ease traffic flow and allow more operators to have more fun on a given physical plant in the model -- especially given our short main line runs.

---

Hey, if you want to model bollixed-up yards and have your operators standing around twiddling their thumbs, more power to ya'. I'd rather have the traffic flow -- call me crazy!

Don't know what constitutes a yard lead? Craig Bisgeier's site explains.

A Better Start for Beginners

2009-12-31T15:04:00.000-08:00

As I noted a while back, the searches that lead folks to my website, as well as threads on model railroad forums, suggest that there are a lot of newcomers to the hobby at this time of year. In addition, many people seem to find their way back to the hobby around the holidays. That's certainly understandable and a positive thing – we need new (and returning) blood to keep the hobby going.

But we seem to have some challenges in helping these newbies find their bearings and get started. Often, these folks are led to an HO 4X8 from 101 Track Plans, an Atlas track plan book, or similar sources. Or worse yet, encouraged to download a CAD program and design their own layout.

I am asking myself if these are really the best paths we can offer to newcomers. The first part of this question is, should we be recommending that absolute newcomers immediately start building a layout? That's always been the "standard" procedure, but does it serve everyone well? Some of these newcomers don't even have an idea of what scale they wish to pursue, let alone type of layout, era, prototype, etc.

Could it be that some might actually benefit from some more exposure to the hobby before beginning their own home layout? This could come formally through club membership or informally by helping out at an in-process layout. They might learn more (and more quickly) if they weren't trying to figure everything out from scratch. And if they were part of a modular club, they could get hands-on experience and a chunk of layout that could possibly be used later at home.

And if they are bound and determined to build a layout as a first step, would these newbies not perhaps be better-served by being directed to one of the start-to-finish layout books such as Marty McGuirk's new N scale layout-building guide -- or a Model Railroader magazine project?

Even though I have been critical of the track plans chosen for some of these efforts (and still am frustrated by some of them), perhaps these soup-to-nuts guides are a better choice, track plan warts and all, than sending the newbie down a path that ends with a neglected half-finished Plywood Pacific covered in dust in the corner of a basement.

I've seen quite a few of those forlorn abandoned HO 4X8s over the years. And it makes me wonder if there isn't some better path. I certainly don't have the answer, but I think it's worth considering before we send another complete beginner down a layout-building path.

Bending the Mold

2009-12-06T16:10:00.001-08:00

The new layout project beginning in the January 2010 Model Railroader magazine doesn't exactly "break the mold" -- but there is some welcome bending of project layout practices. Dick Christianson's track plan is not strictly rectangular and it's designed so that at least the mainline curves are broader then the bare minimum for the scale. It's nice to see an N scale, modern era, western U.S. project as well.

The lack of staging is a frustration, and purists may be critical of the use of KATO Unitrack. But it's the kind of layout a newcomer can relate to and undertake without a lot of experience or background.

Kudos to Christianson and to MR for exposing their readers to something slightly new and different.

Searching for the Sacred Sheet

2009-11-04T11:15:00.000-08:00

It is interesting to analyze the keyword search activity that brings visitors to my website. Each Fall for the last few years, the percentage of searches including some variation on the words "HO 4X8 layout track plan" increases significantly. This percentage is substantial throughout the year, perhaps 20% of all searches that lead visitors to my web pages.

But in the Fall, this percentage grows. For September, it was 38% -- and if the past holds true, it will grow to 45% or more into the Winter*. As a point of reference, just 8% of searches in September included variations on "shelf layout" and 7% contained variations on "switching layout".

Since most of those "4X8"-related searches lead visitors to my argument against the traditional "sacred sheet" HO 4X8 layout, one might wonder if these searchers leave frustrated. But rather than a "bounce-off" (the web marketer's term for a one-and-done visit that lingers only briefly on a single page), many of these visitors seem to spend some time on that page. And more than half look deeper into the site.

I draw two conclusions from these data points. First, the idea of the HO 4X8, for its many demonstrable faults, is deeply rooted in the prospective model railroader's mind. Decades of magazine articles and layout books devoted to the good ol' HO 4X8 have created the perception that it is the ideal beginner's layout. Of course, this is far from true, but it shows how powerful that notion has become.

[I assume that many of these searchers are folks who are beginning in the hobby or returning to it after an absence, since the percentage increases so noticeably leading into the year-end holidays.]

But secondly, there is also a strong interest in alternatives to the HO 4X8 layout, if those are presented on equal footing with the sacred sheet. One can see this in how deeply many of these "4X8" searchers go into my site.

The decades-old fascination with the HO 4X8 sacred sheet is strong -- many are drawn to it like moths to a flame. The commercial press recognizes this and has catered to that interest (or pandered to it, depending on one's perspective). But a large part of the attraction of the HO 4X8 is due to the perception of its suitability that is created by the commercial publications' past over-promotion. I'll leave it to the reader to decide whether the resultant cycle is virtuous or vicious.

I hope that my small effort to educate folks on the alternatives helps at least some find a path that better suits their needs than the one-size-fits-few HO 4X8. In the same floor space, alternative layout footprints usually offer broader radii, better access, more engaging operations, and improved scenic opportunities. I'm glad to be playing a small part in telling that story.

* Update: It was just over 48% in December, 2009. The desire for the Sacred Sheet remains strong.

In Name Only

2009-10-29T14:01:00.000-07:00

I repeatedly make the mistake of wading into discussions of Timetable and Train Order on Internet forums. TT&TO is certainly the flavor of the month in model operations right now. Many are attracted to it because of the publicity from some well-known modelers who are TT&TO enthusiasts.

That's fine, except that folks are now going through all kinds of mental gymnastics to justify naming whatever compromised and bastardized version of the operating rules they adopt "TT&TO".

Some of these schemes are little more than sequence timetables that are set up to extend as trains run late. Others are Track Warrant Control in disguise … having none of the flavor of individual crew decision-making that so typify TT&TO.

But folks are obsessed with the Timetable and Train Order "badge of honor" -- so they call these weird hybrids "TT&TO" and are hyper-defensive toward any thoughtful consideration of what they are planning (or viable alternatives). No matter how much they corrupt the concept, they fight fiercely to keep the TT&TO moniker.

Bottom line, there are some circumstances of layout infrastructure, crew desires and capabilities, desired train densities, etc. that just don't work well with TT&TO in the model environment. But instead of facing that reality, these folks cling to the cachet of TT&TO -- even if in name only. Oftentimes, it seems to me they would be better off with another method of train control, even if slightly anachronistic for the modeled period, to more smoothly handle the high traffic volumes folks tend to run on model railroads. But no, it's TT&TO sine qua non.

I enjoy operating on TT&TO layouts (if the infrastructure and concept can support it) -- I've even helped set up TT&TO sessions on some layouts. So I've got nothing against TT&TO in principle. But it does bug me when people delude themselves and others with their ersatz schemes by labeling them "TT&TO". Choosing a train control method as a status-seeking exercise is a mistake, in my opinion.

Looking Back: the Ventura County Ry.

2009-10-19T19:34:00.000-07:00

Things have been pretty hectic at LayoutVison Intergalactic HQ recently, so I haven't had time for a lot of blog posts. But I did finally put up another of my "might have been" layouts.

This one was based on the Ventura County Railway, which interchanges with the UP (formerly Southern Pacific) in Oxnard, CA. I lived nearby in Southern California at the time and it would have been a neat N scale switching layout in the oversized finished garage of the house I owned there (1989-1990 or so).

Click here for more on this track plan in my Layout Design Gallery

Bruce Morden wrote a great article on the Ventura County Railway in Layout Design Journal #26, Spring 2001, published by the Layout Design SIG. I reworked my design in 2001 for the article and looking at it again now confirms that it would have been an interesting layout to build and run, even if I would make a few changes if designing it today.

Slim Rails in Stages

2009-10-12T15:41:00.000-07:00

It is great to see another of my custom layout designs published in the commercial press. The latest article in Model Railroad Hobbyist October, 2009 (issue #4) describes an HOn3 layout based on S.P's famous narrow gauge Keeler Branch (former Carson and Colorado). The track plan had to be designed in stages, since the room could only be occupied a bit at a time. Model Railroad Hobbyist is always free to download here.

Click here for a better view of this this track plan. For the full description of the track plan and operations, and great photos of the real-life railroad, download Model Railroad Hobbyist magazine, October 2009 (issue #4).

The article is thoroughly illustrated through the generosity of railroad historian and author Joe Dale Morris. Mr. Morris has recently published an extensive history of the last decades of the real-life line, Southern Pacific's Slim Rails in the Sunset: 1940-1960 (Southern Pacific Historical and Technical Society, 2008). The book is again available from the SPH&TS site or at dealers.

Unfortunately, I completed the design quite a while before Mr. Morris' book was available, it would have helped with some nagging questions. He is truly an expert on the topic.

The Laws Railroad Museum and Historic Site in Laws, CA has preserved some of the equipment and buildings of the S.P. narrow gauge, and also generously made photography available.
The approval to publish photos of long-gone railroad scenes is sometimes very difficult to obtain. But when the copyright holders are as generous as they were in this case, it wonderfully enhances the final product.

With Scenery, no Less

2009-10-01T07:32:00.000-07:00

I've heard from a few folks over the years that they are building one of my published plans from an article or the website. My own small N scale switching layout has been done a couple of times in different scales.

Ben Earp sent along a photo of his recently completed version. Different era and locale, but it was fun to see what his version looks like. Modeling and photo by Ben Earp.

If any blog readers have ever built one of my published track plans or used a segment of one of my designs as a portion of your layout, I'd enjoy seeing a photo and reading how it turned out.

Power Failure

2009-09-23T13:54:00.000-07:00

Why is there such a lack of decent-running affordable steam for Southern Pacific and Santa Fe in HO and N, yet the parade of Big Boys, 4-12-2s, and other oddball rarities (a Triplex?!) goes on and on? This question came up recently from one of my custom layout design clients. The neat transition-era California central valley HO layout we designed for him will lack decent SP and ATSF steam models appropriate for the layout's size and concept.

The conspiracy theorists (who are massively over-represented on model railroad forums) blame sinister plots dreamt up by evil marketers to force-feed us monster engines. But my technology marketing experience tells me that it's rare that marketing makes people buy something they absolutely don't want. I think the answer is simpler, but unfortunately still not hopeful for those looking to buy small-to-medium sized engines (especially of western oil-burning prototypes).

Let's take all the folks willing to buy a typical SP-style oil-burning 2‑8‑0, for example, in HO or N scale. Sure, there are plenty of SP modelers who would jump at one, but there's probably not a large general interest in the broader market. Just too plebeian for the masses.

SP 2‑8‑0 #2562 at West Oakland in 1954. Tom Gray photo from the Tom Dill collection. This locomotive is preserved and on display at the Arizona Railway Museum in Chandler, AZ. More locomotive info and photos here.

On the other hand, a Big Boy appeals to many more than just the UP modelers. I've seen these monstrosities running on generic 5X9s, Maine Central layouts, everywhere. (And looking silly in the process, but that's just me.) And of course, thousands of Big Boys reside in boxes or on shelves because modelers just had to have one, but it won't run on the tight curves of their HO 4X8 (or they don't have a layout at all).

Our hobby seems to be intrigued by the biggest, the fastest, the most powerful. The manufacturers build these big engines (and multiple releases and competing models of them) because they do sell. More's the pity, but it seems to be the case.

So if I'm a manufacturer, which market segment will I go after: the badly-needed offering for a smaller segment; or the "me too" Big Boy that has a chance at a small piece of a larger segment? The flashy rarities seem the safer bet in our upside-down modeling world, where the mass market does not have an interest or understanding of the realism gained by modeling typicality. But I wonder if that's really true?

If just one myopic model railroad product manager would instead consider the actual trends in the hobby, they would see that the interest in accuracy in modeling rosters is growing. And this is especially true among those building operating layouts – which by their nature usually need more than one of a particular locomotive type.

No, there aren't as many modelers overall as in the "gotta have a Big Boy" segment, but there are fewer competitors. And each of the operating modelers would probably buy multiple copies of the mid-sized to smaller steam locomotives needed to fill out an operating roster.

Why do I believe this? Because modelers buy the diesel equivalents in very large numbers. SP 2‑8‑0 Consolidations were the GP-7s of their day -- and Geeps are popular year-in and year-out because of their usefulness on a variety of layouts. Yes, the odd (literally) DD40AX will sell, but tens of thousands more modelers buy Geeps.

So whaddaya say, model railroad manufacturers? How about one decent oil burning western prototype small-to-midsize loco?

No, I'm not holding my breath.

"Prototype designs are easier" -- Baloney!

2009-09-17T13:27:00.000-07:00

One of the oft-repeated truisms about model railroad track planning is: "It's easier to adapt a prototype design than to freelance one". But I can tell you, that ain't always true!

I'm working on a few different designs right now. Some are fairly strictly prototype-based, others very freelanced. And the freelanced ones are a little easier. Here's what I mean:

In one design, for example, the real-life branch upon which the layout is based fits reasonably well into the somewhat challenging available space. And there's a terrific long stretch where a yard would fit so perfectly.

Unfortunately, it's not at all close to the relative location where the actual yard was located in real life. And no amount of contortion and contrivance magically transform the real-life branch. The design is working out OK in the end, but it's been a lot of work (most of it enjoyable).

On one of the freelanced projects, by contrast, I can move the yard to the best spot in the space relative to the room, to staging, and to other desired features. Because I have seen enough segments of real-life railroads and learned about how they work, I have a good foundation of knowledge for making the judgments about plausible locations for the various elements.

And that's the key -- for a neophyte without some background knowledge, freelance designs are more difficult to get right. So in that light, maybe the "Prototype is Easier" conventional wisdom is correct much of the time.

Programming note: Now that Fall is nearly here and readers' thoughts are turning back to model railroading, I'll be publishing blog updates more often again.

One of my favorite audio streams lately has been Texas Hellkitten Radio on Live365. The stream's motto of "… a little rockabilly, a little surf, a little blues …" is certainly accurate. It's interesting to hear nuggets from the past alongside more polished modern music that pays homage to those pioneers. And then there's the Psychobilly and Voodoobilly you just don't often hear that often anywhere. (OK, sometimes with good reason.) But overall, a fun trip to a Texas honkytonk -- without the smoke and the unnervingly sticky floor.

Talking Track Warrants

2009-08-27T20:33:00.000-07:00

It was a pleasure to join the guys on the Model Railcast Show for another podcast (Show #76). While the primary topic was my recent article in the OpSIG's Dispatcher's Office magazine on Track Warrants and other operating forms, we also talked a bit about my bias toward layout designs that tell a story and a few other odds and ends.

Examples of Track Warrants and related forms from the Dispatcher's Office article are on my website.

The New 102

2009-08-17T19:48:00.000-07:00

Kalmbach's recent publication of 102 Realistic Track Plans has much to recommend it. The track plans are generally much more practical than the chestnuts found in the 1950s‑era 101 Track Plans for Model Railroaders, since many of them reflect layouts that have actually been built. Beyond the track plans, the additional planning tips that have been included are useful and reasonably up-to-date (although there's no mention of model railroad CAD).

Because of this, 102 Realistic Track Plans will likely be much more helpful to most aspiring layout builders than 101 Track Plans. Many of the plans include more-current ideas such as prototype inspiration, staging, interchange, and larger industries (my Four Cornerstones) – so they are more likely to get a newbie started out on the right foot.

The track plans are selected from designs published in Model Railroader, Model Railroad Planning, and Great Model Railroads in roughly the last ten years. It may be that this coincides with the change to digital creation of track plan art at Kalmbach. Each plan is accompanied by a brief information box with the original publication citation and some new comments by an MR Editor.

One of my designs is included, the N scale 4X8 Houston Port Terminal Railway track plan from MRP 2002. This design has been republished in multiple places by Kalmbach, I guess because of the 4X8 "sacred sheet" format. From an author's standpoint, I think the ideas in the Alameda Belt Line (MRP 2005) or Santa Maria Valley (MRP 2004) layouts are more engaging, but that's just my opinion.

Interestingly, 102 Realistic Track Plans is published as part of the "How to Build Realistic Layouts" series, rather than as a stand-alone book like 101 Track Plans. Perhaps the thought is to publish these more often, which would be welcome.

For future versions, there are a number of changes I would strongly suggest. The first is better attention to detail: there are some unfortunate cut-and-paste typos that are very confusing if one has not seen the original MR article.

Much more importantly, I wish that Kalmbach had been wiling to use the new text as a way to highlight both the strengths and weaknesses of some of these plans. A number of the plans have flaws that would likely cause significant problems, such as too-sharp s‑curves on grades, an over-reliance on switchback industry spurs, and impossibly tight clearances for subterranean hidden tracks.

I understand that this is a tricky line to walk: too much criticism of a published design casts a bad light on the original planner (and on MR for including it). But the opportunity to provide more insight into the design process, trade-offs, and compromises is tremendous.

This new publication would also have been a chance to make use of some of the all‑new sections to highlight ideas that newbies find difficult to grasp but are nonetheless very important, such as staging -- but I recognize that there's only so much space that can be given over to expository text in a "track plan" book.

But those criticisms aside, 102 Realistic Track Plans lives up to its title in most respects. And it's a huge improvement over 101 Track Plans, in my opinion. I look forward to more of these. And I sincerely hope that Kalmbach will take advantage of future such publications to provide some background and instruction to readers through deeper discussions of re-published plans.

And while we're at it, might it not be time to re‑title the next printing of 101 Track Plans to alert readers to the realities (good and bad) of its content?

Fixin' What Ain't Broke

2009-07-30T07:18:00.000-07:00

When I was a young and enthusiastic first-time manager, one of my employees was an older gentleman originally from the Southern part of the US. After I described a complex new procedure we were going to put in place, he left the room muttering under his breath, "Fixin' what ain't broke …". As it turned out, he was absolutely right – the "old" way worked fine and my shiny new idea added nothing but complexity.

I often think of this when I read about people suggesting complex changes to the 4-cycle car-card-and-waybill (CC&WB) system. As regular readers of this blog and my articles in the Operation SIG's Dispatcher's Office (July 2007) know, I'm a big fan of the tried and true CC&WB. They are self-correcting, easy to get started and maintain, and they are used on so many layouts that most visiting operators know how to use them.

And yet, folks feel compelled to add more and more complications: three (or even four!) car card boxes for each industry, extra tags for cars that are still being loaded or unloaded, extra tags for cars that are off-spot, convoluted routing detail, etc., etc. Hey, if this seems like fun, knock yourself out! But the basic destination-based information on each cycle of the waybill can actually provide all of the car-routing sophistication needed with just one box per industry and reasonably complete information on the train instructions.

Not to say that there aren't some simple tweaks to the traditional system that can add interest. Bad Order, Icing, and Clean Out tags, for example, are simple to add but can enhance operating realism. And we should always be open to new ideas that provide a benefit in terms of easing reset overhead or improving the operator experience.

I find that many of the CC&WB permutations are suggested on Internet forums by theorists. They've rarely operated with CC&WB and have certainly never set up a session using the system, but they've got a lot of ideas for radical changes that are "needed". Maybe so. But "fixin' what ain't broke" might not be necessary when the basic system works so well.

Going Global

2009-07-15T14:29:00.000-07:00

The Internet is an amazing thing. It's now possible to have one's attitude (and ancestry) questioned on forums all around the world! Before the Internet, it required people to actually have met me to form those kinds of opinions. Now that's progress!

I find it a lot of fun, actually …

Why I've Stopped Offering Advice

2009-07-13T20:32:00.000-07:00

It's tremendously difficult for me not to try to help when someone posts to an Internet forum yet another mindless oval with an unworkable yard or a spaghetti-filled blob that should be called the Ragu Northern. But I've had to stop.

As the old joke goes, "Never try to teach a dog to sing. The results are poor, and it seems to annoy the dog." My endless exhortations for folks to step away from the CAD, learn some layout design principles, and develop a concept and vision for their layout before designing a track plan generally fall on deaf ears. (OK, there was one success recently, but it's the exception that proves the rule).

Instead, people just keep cranking out the CAD revisions – each new plan as infested with flaws as the last. Although the flaws often do mutate from revision to revision.

And what's worse, these neophyte designers often become understandably defensive about their precious track plan, no matter how hackneyed, impractical, or inaccessible. And then the forum chorus starts chanting, "Just build it, it'll be fine – it's your plan, do what you like" … talk about the blind leading the partially-sighted!

Anyway, finally, it's enough. As my wife often reminds me about other matters, "Byron, it's only 'help' if the other person wants it." So true.

Oh, I'll probably make an occasional exception for comments about published plans – not so much pride-of-poster-ownership there. Or I might suggest some better-thought-out plans for the same space from which the help-seeker might hope to learn. That way, I can perhaps accommodate my desire to be helpful without aggravating the help-seekers (and myself) so much in the process. We'll see ...

Update 18 July: Based on notes from a couple of you, I guess the forgoing could have been clearer -- especially the title. I'm still posting occasionally on Internet forums and offering general layout design and operations suggestions. What I've decided to stop providing is comments on the specific details of a poster-provided plan. And I'm still offering custom layout design services to those who are interested, of course.

Thanks for reading!

Alcos in the Alcove

2009-07-08T14:15:00.000-07:00

There can be a lot of funny little nooks and crannies in houses. One of my layout design clients had a 5-foot-wide alcove where had set up a 24" deep plywood shelf. The original thought was to build an HO diorama in the space. But when the OK came for another adjoining shelf, the idea of an L-shaped switching layout took form.

The resulting design had to incorporate some specific kits and suggest a granger motif, so some challenging compromises and trade-offs were necessary. The resulting design is featured in the most recent edition of Model Railroad Hobbyist magazine (Q3 2009), always available for free download at the MRH homepage. You can also see the HO shelf switching layout track plan in my Layout Design Gallery.

Operating Forms Article

2009-06-10T18:21:00.000-07:00

I'm pleased to have an article on Track Warrants and other operating forms in the most recent (June 2009) issue of The Dispatcher's Office magazine, published by the Operations SIG. Editor Bill Kaufman and Art Director Otto M. Vondrak did their usual fine job on my material.

The article covers the basics of Track Warrant Control (TWC), a couple of examples of the Track Warrant Form modified for model use, and some other forms that have proved useful in developing operating sessions. While TWC wasn't widely deployed on real railroads until the 1980s, I've had good luck utilizing it on model railroads set in earlier eras.

TWC is fast and easy to set up, easy for crews to learn, and doesn't impose special requirements on layout design, construction, or complexity (as opposed to TT&TO, which demands sufficient running length; or CTC, which requires a signaling system and associated electronics.) TWC is a great first step to get ops started on any layout, even if other traffic control schemes are contemplated for later. I'm all about reducing the MTTF (Mean Time to Fun) in getting ops started, and TWC is a great tool in that regard.

By the way, for anyone interested in model railroad operations, OpSIG membership has to be one of the best deals on the planet: memberships with on-line delivery of the magazine are as low as 5 bucks per year!

It was fun for me to see these ideas and examples in print – it makes the work to prepare an article worthwhile.

Caricature, Copy, or "Close Enough"?

2009-06-06T10:57:00.000-07:00

I've been working on quite a few prototype-based custom track plans lately. I enjoy these projects, but it's always a matter of making trade-offs between what was actually there on the real-life railroad and what we have room for on the model. There are sort of three ways to approach the challenge.

The first way was used a lot in the 1950s and 1960s and can be seen in older plans such as those in Kalmbach's 101 Track Plans. Want Newark, New Jersey on your HO layout in ten linear feet? No problem: just put in a siding, two stub-end yard tracks, a couple of industry spurs, and voila!, it's Newark!

Of course, this is barely adequate for Newark, TX (on the Rock Island), let alone Newark, NJ. Yet this caricature style of "prototype" track planning persisted through even some well-regarded published plans -- and widely in general use. These highly abridged scenes didn't look very much nor work very much like the real thing, but it did allow the designer to claim 300 miles of the prototype in a spare bedroom.

The other extreme has come into vogue recently with the wider availability of prototype information. That's to simply scale down the prototype element by whatever ratio necessary to fit a copy into the allotted space. The real yard is two miles long and you have 15 feet in HO? No problem: just shrink the real thing by a factor of eight. So what if it leaves you with body tracks three inches long? It's an LDE, don't cha know. What could be more accurate than that?

Of course, the best approach requires a lot more thought, and that's why it sadly eludes so many designers. We have to decide what balance of "looks like" and "works like" best fits the available space and layout concept. And then work toward capturing signature elements that suggest the real thing.

On a project I am completing now, one of the challenges is a scene that was about half of a mile long in real life. It needs to fit in about 600 scale feet of benchwork between two curves. While a simple 4-to-1 compression would theoretically fit, it wouldn’t capture the personality of the signature elements, which include a truly massive industry, a very modelgenic station, and a couple of smaller typical Midwestern rail-served businesses.

Fitting it all in while including a bit of the street grid that helped define the real scene required flipping one spur to point west instead of east and placing a station on a curve. This allowed the track configurations around the large plant to more strongly resemble their real life counterparts.

One of the keys is modulating the degree of prototype fidelity around the typical layout. Signature scenes in key locales get more focus (i.e., space), while others are more heavily modified. This process requires a firm grasp of the overall concept and vision, which then serves as a reference against which to judge the many trade-offs required.

Borrowing from W. Allen McClelland's "good enough" modeling motto, this "close enough" approach allows us to capture the most appealing and engaging scenes and elements in a way that communicates the atmosphere of the real thing to viewers and operators. Modulating fidelity and referring back often to the guiding layout vision helps create realistic scenes in reasonable spaces.

Just the Same, Only Different!

2009-05-30T20:44:00.000-07:00

I've had an interesting run of five spare-room-sized custom layout design projects recently. Although all were roughly 100 to 150 square feet in overall size, they spanned the country from the anthracite coal fields of Pennsylvania to the California desert and eras from the 1930s to nearly the present day.

While I'm usually too caught up in the design process on a particular project for much reflection, looking back now on the finished designs I am struck by the wide variety of ways to enjoy
model railroading. The choices and trade-offs required for model railfanning vs. operations vs. replicating a place and time (or balancing all three) makes for very different solutions to the challenge of a similar space. And all that is compounded by a variety of eras, scales, gauges and even design approaches (twice-around, multi-deck, etc.).

I think the resulting layouts will serve well their specific builder's particular interests and desires. But not one of them would satisfy any of the other owners' needs. And in my mind, that diversity is one of the best parts of my job and our hobby.

The next projects in process and in the queue are larger and bring their own unique challenges. But the breadth of these recent track plans reminds me that even a layout in a more-modest space can have a unique personality and tell a compelling story.

Madera Flyer

2009-05-10T13:32:00.000-07:00

I recently finished up an N scale layout design for a contemporary era shortline. One of the elements I wanted to include was a job that would require a shoving platform, since the real-life railroad serving as inspiration for this layout owns one.

For those unfamiliar with the term, these cars are used at the end of trains for long shoving moves to give the crew a place to perch. This role was once served by cabooses, obviously, but those have pretty much gone by the wayside in modern railroading.

Photo from Frank Orona's Railpictures gallery

As seen by the photo above, some of the shoving platforms are pretty spartan, with barely any shelter for the trainmen. Others are ratty-looking older cabooses that have had little tender loving care over the years. Sometimes these old cabooses are gutted and welded closed, so basically only the platforms are usable.

Photo from the Cabooses of Alabama web page

Then there is the Madera Flyer. In May of 2008 I was driving between Southern California and the Bay Area and stopped at the UP's (former SP) Fresno Yard for a few minutes of casual railfanning. A lone diesel appeared, moving at a fairly fast clip with a single car and what appeared to be a bright Armour Yellow caboose in tow. While the crew started organizing a train from cars in the yard, I maneuvered for a slightly closer look.

Emblazoned on the side of a very spiffy-looking caboose that didn't seem to be of either UP or SP origin were the words "Madera Flyer". Shoving platform, indeed! In searching the web, I found Alex R.'s interesting write up of the ex-MoPac caboose and its duties. (Photos above and below are from his blog.)

Modern-day railroading has lost much of the atmosphere and character many of us strive for in our layouts. But there are still some real-life railroaders who are proud of their traditions, craft, and equipment, and it shows in examples like the Madera Flyer.

There should be warnings ...

2009-04-29T08:27:00.000-07:00

There are some perfectly dreadful track plans being published on the Internet lately. If only these were required to carry a mandatory advisory:

If you won't stop the CAD for yourself, please, do it for the Newbees you are misleading.

A Railfan Sampler

2009-04-22T15:40:00.000-07:00

I've had the pleasure of having another article published in Issue #2 of the Model Railroad Hobbyist e-zine. The layout design project itself was a bit different from most for me in that it was a very specific railfan focus practically to the exclusion of any traditional operating elements.

There is one fairly large yard, but it's meant to be a place for consists to be changed or power swapped, not as a base of local switching operations. And the scenes are famous railfan locales (Tehachapi, Cajon, etc.) rather than the more common towns and industries found on many layouts. The overall layout is quite large, occupying a floor in a commercial building, but the effort to capture the essence of famous scenes like The Loop and the horseshoe curve at Caliente demands a lot of space.

Model Railroad Hobbyist is a free download here and you can see the track plan and read more about the design itself. While working on the project, I snapped some railfan style photos during a pass through the Tehachapi area on a "slightly intentional" railfan trip I wrote about here earlier.

You can also see two different approaches to large HO track plans featuring Tehachapi in my Layout Design Gallery.

It was an interesting project with a unique layout vision and concept and it's great to see it in the "pages" of Model Railroad Hobbyist.

Over the weekend I happened to pluck the Georgia Satellites' eponymous 1986 debut release from a teetering stack of CDs. AC/DC meets Allman Brothers Band in a torrent of power chords and 12-bar blues! I suppose many would consider the band a one-hit-wonder, but there's a lot more here than just the radio-friendly "Keep Your Hands to Yourself". Lead guitarist Rick Richards shows off his "Dixie-fried" chops throughout, and the tunes where lead singer Dan Baird and Richards join voices are particularly effective, such as on Terry Anderson's "Battleship Chains" and the turn-it-to-eleven rocker "Can't Stand the Pain" (aided and abetted by Richards' stinging slide work). Unfortunately Baird left the band after two less-successful later releases, but Georgia Satellites shows they were really on to something for a while.

Selective Obsession

2009-04-11T14:24:00.000-07:00

We've often heard of "selective compression", the modeling concept of reducing the size of something (a structure, for example) to better fit the layout. A nine-bay factory building becomes five bays wide, for example. A concept I use fairly often is "compressive selection". This is choosing a smaller example of something because it's more achievable as a model. For example, if considering a mainline junction with a branch as a subject for a layout, I might focus on the branch and only suggest the heavily-travelled mainline for a more achievable scope.

But many folks fall prey to "selective obsession". This is where one idea, one element, one town, one industry becomes stuck in their minds and they refuse to consider any change. This leads to compromising the entire layout for this one prize, even though the end result is unsatisfying overall. The other elements are squeezed into less and less space; the operating connections become ever more convoluted; and any logical fit to the real-world exceedingly remote. Yet they hang on to that one idea, come what may.

This might be the guy who wants to handle forty-car grain trains on his HO 4X8, or the fellow who insists on a division point yard, even though it shrinks the rest of the layout so severely that the yard makes no sense operationally. Or the poor soul who clings desperately to an admittedly lousy design from an old book because he already built the benchwork.

Becoming too locked-in to anything too early in the design process restricts your flexibility and creativity just when you need it most. Balance is the key. When you find yourself resisting logical ideas and alternatives because you say to yourself, "But I can't give up Chicago!"; you may be a victim of Selective Obsession.

Progress is Being Attempted

2009-03-01T13:51:00.000-08:00

There's finally a small bit of progress to report on the N scale Brooklyn Basin Oakland Harbor Belt layout in the office. My friend Bart Thurber and I (and the trusty laser level) installed the wall brackets that will support Brooklyn Basin and the lower deck layout early in February. Not much has happened in the meantime, since our whole family has been down with a nasty virus. But it's great to have a bit of visible evidence that something is developing.

Bart does the precision eyeball work below while I prepare to supply the brute force with the drill motor

What's going on the lower deck, you may ask? We'll talk about that next time.

"Ye Knows too Much"

2009-02-08T20:49:00.000-08:00

OK, I admit it; I'm a big fan of Disneyland. I think the same is true for many model railroaders, because the idea of creating the world in miniature is common to both. I was thinking about one of my favorite attractions, Pirates of the Caribbean, the other day while working on a design project. At one point, a voice intones a warning that goes something like this:

Perhaps ye knows too much. Ye’ve seen the cursed treasure, ye know where it be hidden. Now proceed at your own risk! These be the last friendly words you’ll hear … you may not survive to pass this way again!

It's not surprising that this particular project brings these words to mind: it's a fascinating prototype, the client has lots of detailed background information, but there's just no way that we are going to get all of it into the available space. Sometimes the more one knows, the more difficult it is to leave anything out. Indeed, many folks I talk with are afflicted with "analysis paralysis" – they know so much about their prototype that they can't decide how to begin.

Often, a big part of my job in working with a client on these prototype-inspired projects is to help with the process of prioritizing and trade-offs. What will meet the client's interests best, whether that be replication of favorite scenes, operations that suggest the prototype, or some compromise. "Knowing too much" can indeed be a curse, me hearties.

On the other hand, a deep understanding of the prototype can create serendipitous opportunities for capturing an element of the prototype in a perfect spot. On a recent project set in the Colorado Rockies, I remembered a segment of the prototype where the tracks curved around a series of swampy areas on fills and short trestles. When an empty spot in roughly the right location became available, I was able to drop in this atmospheric scene.

Another danger of knowing too much is that it can make you want to know more. And with the vast proliferation of prototype information becoming available in books, magazines, and online in the last twenty years or so, there will always be more to learn. How do you know when to call it "good enough"?

The key, as is so often the case in model railroading, is finding the right balance. And that, unfortunately, is a personal value for each of us. My client on the project that kicked off this "knows too much" reverie already recognized the dangers himself, because he included in the background materials an article by John Edwards (no, not that one) from the January 2003 Railroad Model Craftsman. Edwards laments that in the process of learning so much about his prototype, he was also learning all that he didn't know – and he almost came to feel he didn't know anything.

Hopefully, Edwards found the right compromise for himself, as I'm sure my client and I will find for this project. And after some twists and turns through the pirates' lair, we'll pop out into the sunlight at the end. Yo ho, yo ho, a designer's life for me …

New Track Plan Articles

2009-01-26T08:18:00.000-08:00

I'm pleased to have two articles published this month in the commercial press. By coincidence, each of the articles deals with a smaller shortline or terminal prototype, each of which was once under wire! Each of the layouts was also designed primarily for switching operation by a small crew.

The Visalia Electric (VE) is the subject in Kalmbach's Model Railroad Planning 2009. The VE was a Southern Pacific subsidiary that once operated interurbans under wire, but later was a freight hauler primarily serving the citrus growing areas near Exeter, CA. The layout design is for a fairly large basement, but with the odd protuberances and access needs typical of these spaces. As John Armstrong often recommended, a long room-filling spiral proved the best way to capture some signature prototype design elements and use the space efficiently.

Joe Fugate's new Model Railroad Hobbyist mediazine issue #1 features a design for the Hoboken Shore Railroad (HBS), an interesting little terminal shortline serving shoreline industries in its namesake New Jersey city by the Hudson. This little railroad had both car float and on-rails interchange, unique industries and operation, even a setting with some topography. The layout design is the third HBS track plan for this client, who had to deal with some (happy) changes in life circumstances and domiciles along the way. The layout was a bit compressed to fit the spare-bedroom-sized space, but managed to capture some of the signature scenes and a flavor of the prototype's operations.

You can also read more about this HO switching layout track plan on my web site.

Writing for the commercial press is always a lot of work, but I seem to enjoy the finished product enough to do it again (and again). I hope you'll enjoy these, too.

That Empire Has No Clothes

2009-01-18T21:33:00.000-08:00

One thing that frustrates me when I see folks ask for layout design help on the Internet is the apparent unwillingness, or inability, for people to give direct, constructive, negative feedback. It's almost as if we've all been so conditioned by the Little League everybody-gets-a-trophy attitude that we are afraid to offer people the "tough love" they need to make their plans better. (Full disclosure: if not for everybody-gets-a-trophy, I would have received darned few in my meager athletic career). Instead, it's "attaboys" all around, even when the plan offered for comment has serious flaws.

Partly it's an unwillingness to ruffle feathers, but part of it may just be a lack of attention or experience on the part of those giving advice. I see this again and again. A plan is posted, unfortunately with serious flaws that will impact reliability, operating enjoyment, or appearance. The comments start rolling in, some of which may even be on topic. But a day or two and twenty comments later and nobody has addressed the obvious lack of concentricity of the double-track curves or the 2-foot long HO staging tracks intended to hold twenty-car trains. Just like the story of the "Emperor's New Clothes", nobody seems willing, or able, to state the obvious.

When someone (like me) finally does mention these issues, our empire-builder is frequently (and understandably) crestfallen. Rather than depend on a forum Geek Chorus, I often encourage these neophyte designers to build their own understanding of layout design through layout tours and study before tackling another CAD revision. Few take that path, unfortunately, instead opting for the ear-tickling pleasantries dispensed by their forum mates.

To use the psycho-babble terms du jour, that's enabling, not empowering. If we are going to offer help to these folks, we owe it to them to invest a little time and focus in our study of their plan – and to have enough integrity to tell the truth respectfully.

No Visible Means of Support

2009-01-11T20:19:00.000-08:00

Over the last few years, I've had the opportunity to design a number of multi-deck layouts. Sometimes one of the major challenges is figuring out how to hold the dang thing up. The areas around the walls are straightforward, of course, some sort of bracket usually works well. But the island and peninsula areas can be a bigger puzzle.

This becomes even truer when I'm working with upper and lower decks somewhat independently. It's easy to make a change on one deck, forget to reflect it in the other at the moment, and only discover much later that you've created "no visible (or invisible) means of support".

There are oodles of doodles on the Internet where layout design neophytes posit extensive gravity-defying multi-deck islands and peninsulas. Not only does the 3D model railroad layout design CAD allow these folks to draw untenable decks, but also to view them from impossible angles. This makes these unbuildable designs appear deceptively practical.

But it's not just limited to layout design tyros. I've been involved now in a couple of large layout projects where an otherwise innovative design lacked only one thing: a way to support the upper deck! Eventually, these layout owners resort to all manner of skyhooks and other appurtenances when the ¼" wide masonite backdrop on the lower deck proves unable to bear the weight of a few hundred pounds of plywood and plaster. How much easier it would have been to design in proper support from the beginning – but even experienced designers hate to give up lower deck real estate for upper deck stability.

For my own part, I've learned to use CAD to my advantage. I often use a straight or curved studwall to support backdrops and upper decks in island and peninsula areas. Once the general footprint of the design is defined, I'll draw in a rough location of the studwall in its own CAD layer. By keeping this layer visible and on top of the other layers most of the time, I avoid paining myself into an overhanging corner (to mix my metaphors.)

Multi-deck designs have been a great addition to the layout designer's toolbox. But applying multi-deck concepts thoughtfully includes always keeping track of what's holding them up.

I've written before about one of my favorite streaming Internet audio channels, Devlar Surf Sessions on Live365. Modern instrumental ("Instro") Surf music includes such subgenres as Spy, Space, and Tiki along with terrific band names such as the Atomic Mosquitoes, the Aqua Velvets, and the X-Rays. I thought this stream was being discontinued, but I've had the good news that it will carry on. So an even heartier "Thanks for the cool waves, Dude ", to programmer Ray Dukes. Definitely worth a listen.

"What Size Shirt Should I Wear?"

2009-01-04T20:21:00.000-08:00

Ridiculous question, right? Why would an adult ask someone else what size clothing to buy for themselves? It's a matter of personal preference and what fits, isn't it?

And yet, similar questions are asked and answered again and again on model railroading forums. For example: "What scale should I choose?"; or "What railroad should I model?" Some of this is the inevitable impact of new people joining the hobby – as many do at this time of year (and that's a good thing).

Back to our shirt analogy, I think it's important that these newcomers get the best advice we can give. After all, a bad fit, whether in the collar or on the layout, is uncomfortable. But because it's really about personal preference, I wish folks would be more inclined to give advice that encourages the questioner to explore his or her own preferences by seeking out layouts to visit and trying equipment on for size in a hobby shop or at a train show. That would be better than the N supporters touting 1:160 and the HO fanatics proclaiming the superiority of all things 1:87.1.

There are benefits and limitations to every scale and gauge combination. So helping folks explore the alternatives to let them choose their trade-offs would be a real benefit. Having said that, I have no patience with the whiners who lament, "Well I really like O scale, but it's so expensive … and HO won't fit in my space … and N is too fiddly … and maybe S but there is so little available". That's often just a bored cry for forum attention and unfortunately does not often enough receive the stony silence it deserves.

When people are truly looking for guidance (and not just for eyeballs), I hope we can all think of helpful things to suggest that would give newcomers ways to experience the pluses and minuses of the scale(s) they are considering with a minimal investment of time and money. Handling equipment at a train show or hobby shop, building an inexpensive kit or two, visiting club layouts, etc., etc., would give these folks a better idea of their own preferences and interests. That should help them find the best "fit" for their long term comfort and enjoyment.

A Layout Grows in Brooklyn

2008-12-14T14:43:00.000-08:00

Or, more accurately, from Brooklyn. And not Brooklyn, NY, but the Brooklyn Basin* area of Oakland, California. I wrote a while back that my layout building efforts in the garage had been waylaid by impending home remodeling. So I decided to focus for now on a shelf layout in our spare bedroom home office.

My proto-freelanced Oakland Harbor Belt's Brooklyn Basin District represents a mix of real-life and imagined industries. In real life, the actual industries were served by the Southern Pacific (now Union Pacific). In my version of reality, the OHB also curves along Oakland's Inner Harbor, serving some industries jointly with the SP and some on its own.

The N scale shelf layout will be built on wall standards, providing space for desks and office equipment below. There may be a few small changes to the track plan before construction, but I think this will be pretty close to the final configuration.

You can read more here about my imagined enhancements to real life and my N scale layout plans for Brooklyn Basin. Hopefully the New Year will bring some actual layout construction updates.

*I'm not sure how the area came to be called Brooklyn Basin, but the name dates back at least to the late 19th century. The area at one time was apparently more of an actual drainage basin, but there has been substantial building on fill since then.

Beer and Dekaohtophyllia

2008-12-07T19:02:00.000-08:00

No, it's not the title of the next Jerry Springer show. "Beer" is a reference to Model Railroader magazine's interesting new MILW Beer Line project layout series (beginning in the January 2009 issue) and "dekaohtophyllia"* is my pidgin Greek for "love of the number 18".

The Beer Line layout is an intriguing and welcome departure from the more typical "Plywood Central" 4X8 HO model railroad designs that have often been featured by MR in past layout construction projects. David Popp's thoughtful track plan is divided into sections that can be combined in multiple configurations. In fact, they are a bit more like modules since there is a consistent location for the "main line" at the section edges.

MR has chosen mainly real-life industries and locales for the layout, and it promises to be more advanced than some of their project layouts in that kitbashing specific prototype structures is suggested. And of course, the emphasis on switching vs. endless round-'n-round is inherent in the choice of prototype line.

By merely taking saw to plywood 4X8 "sacred sheets", MR broke out of one of the strictures of the traditional "beginner" layout. And it appears there will at least be a suggestion of a separate staging yard to be attached, another nice element often lacking in project layouts of the past.

In my mind, all of these elements are very welcome. MR is encouraging beginners to look beyond the traditional HO 4X8, to cut some wood (or have it cut), and to consider real places and industries as subjects for model railroading. All of this may make for a more engaging and satisfying long-term model railroading experience. So far, very good.

And yet, the design sticks to 18" radius HO curves for most of the "main line", even taking the curved side of Atlas Snap Switches in a couple of locations. And why does this "love of eighteen" frustrate me a bit? It's simply this: MR broke the mold in so many positive ways with this project, and in theory could have used any radius for these curves. So why perpetuate the myth that 18" radius is perfect for newcomers to HO layout-building? Elsewhere in the design, significant use is made of PECO Code 83 #5 and #6 turnouts. A somewhat broader curve and the elimination of the Snap Switches would have brought the rest of the layout in alignment with those components. (OK, and they could have done without the switchback industry spurs that require clearing one industry to switch the adjacent one – but I digress.)

My best guess is that it was just too hard to break out of the four foot width dictated by the standard sheet of plywood. Instead, the design requires only one lengthwise cut of a 4X8 sheet and the addition of a couple of "Handy Panel" pre-cut 2X4 sheets. But it would not have taken much effort or space to increase the size of the end sections and permit the use of 20" or slightly larger flextrack curves. Why would this matter? Well, shoving cars through the curved side of a Snap Switch and around 18" radius HO curves can be a bit of a challenge if the track is not laid with care. A slightly larger radius offers more room for error in building and more reliability with a wider variety of equipment in use. It just seems to me to be an opportunity lost to demonstrate that once one is willing to take saw to the sacred sheet, it opens up many alternatives impossible on an unsullied HO 4X8.

My view on this appears destined to be unpopular. When I mentioned it on one forum, I was attacked by a rabid pack of MR defenders. "Beginners don't have room for 48" radius curves, you know!" Yes, I know, but this straw man argument is moot. I'm not talking about changing the 18"R to 48"R. Maybe 20" -- or 19" -- or 23". "Beginners already have 18" sectional curves from their train set, you can't expect them to throw those out!" Huh? Saving a handful of track sections that could be replaced with ten bucks' worth of flex is a reason to potentially compromise operation and reliability for years to come?

The irony is, I'm a big fan of MR generally, and of this project specifically, just not the 18" radius in this case. (By way of comparison, the beginner's project published as an insert this month in Railmodel Craftsman cuts the plywood and uses broader radii but is perhaps the worst beginners design suggestion I've encountered in print in years.) I even used some 18" radius (with easements) recently in an HO custom design that will be published in the New Year where those sharp curves replicate some tight-quarters real-life harbor trackage and contrast with broader curves elsewhere in the design.

The Beer Line project was an opportunity to show the hobby something different and flexible that could give many people a fresh way to approach layout design and construction. In so many ways, it succeeds. But the tie to 18" HO trainset curves and Snap Switches fails to fully capitalize on the opportunity, in my humble (and apparently unwelcome) opinion.

* Yes, I know the actual Greek root would be spelled "-philia", but thanks for the emails. I just thought this spelling was funnier and that's why I called it "pidgin" Greek.

Dull Plan, Engaging Layout?

2008-11-30T15:56:00.000-08:00

A wrote a while back about my inexpert first model railroad layout design, criticizing myself for the model railroad cliché of "an industry in every corner". In response, my friend Robert Bowdidge asked me later if I thought a good design must always look visually interesting and unique as a track plan. Robert, who is building a fine Southern Pacific based HO layout, noted that he had tried some exotic-looking benchwork shapes in his design before concluding that a more common U-shaped approach ultimately yielded a better configuration for the layout in the alotted space. And having operated on Robert's layout, I can vouch for the fact that the longer, straighter legs of the "U" make for better representations of the switching areas and an appealing operating experience.

Certainly I have seen this is also true for many of my own custom model railroad design projects. Sometimes my clients seem a little disappointed that the benchwork outline is so plebeian. But real-life railroads sought to have the longest, straightest tangents possible, using only the curves necessary to join those tangents. The model railroad benchwork shape that yields more of those straight areas will often be a good choice. There are exceptions, of course, especially for mountain-crossing routes. But even in those real-life situations, the most interesting operating areas (towns, yards, etc.) were often located on relatively straight stretches.

The same goes for schematics. A lot of the newcomer layout design efforts we see posted on the Internet serve up a multitude of routes and cross-connections more akin to a pasta bowl than to creating a plausible model railroad. But unfortunately for the real-life railroads, there are no secret hidden paths between Chicago and Los Angeles that cut off the intervening mountain states. So the more realistic schematic tends to be sequential and not variable.

A layout designed with a relatively straightforward benchwork footprint and a linear schematic can still be intensely engaging and visually interesting when built, even if the 2-D track plan is somewhat plain. Thoughtful track arrangements and operating patterns along with the skillful use of viewblocks and scene separators can make the actual layout a very satisfying experience to visit and/or operate. It's the subtleties of layout design that set apart engaging layouts from random collections of track. I wrote about some of these in my series on the Tricky Traps of Layout Design and Track Plan Analysis.

So for me, wild benchwork footprints, tricky multi-path routes, and a visually intriguing track plan diagram are usually secondary to more understated, but critical, design concepts that create long-term interest and enjoyment.

Port Layouts on Podcast

2008-11-14T15:06:00.000-08:00

I had the chance to spend some time with Will Ayerst, one of the proprietors of the Model Railcast Show last week, talking about port-themed model railroad design and operation. Our audio session was recorded and is available for free download on the site as Show #38. My discussion with Will begins about 30 or 40 minutes into the show.

Model RailCast is an interesting alternative in model-railroad themed media. I never tire of hearing myself talk, so it was fun for me. Whether it's interesting for anyone else (and thus, whether I'll be invited back), remains to be seen.

Schoof's "Free Haven Terminal" – Inspirational Layout #8

2008-11-09T12:09:00.000-08:00

As I've discussed the layouts in this series, I've described how a number of them started me thinking more about terminal switching areas and rail-marine environments. But one in particular was the key that unlocked my inner rail-marine modeler -- Russell Schoof's Free Haven Terminal from Model Railroader, October 1990 (also in 48 Top Notch Track Plans, Kalmbach, 1993).

Track plan copyright Model Railroader magazine, used with permission

Click here for a larger view of the Free Haven Terminal

Schoof's layout packs a lot into 10X11 feet in HO, albeit with the use of some pretty tight curves. A decent-sized yard offers some room to work, and a variety of industries and terminals provide reasonable destinations for a good mix of freight cars. Some industries are larger, with realistic multiple tracks. Separate inbound- and outbound freight houses are a rarity on other model railroad track plans, but were common in real life during the less-than-carload (LCL) era. The published plan also has some secluded staging below, reached by a John Armstrong-style "vertical turnout" at the left of the diagram.

There are a few shortcomings that I would try to correct if adapting Schoof's Free Haven Terminal plan for my own use. I might opt for staging behind the backdrop on the same level ("surround staging") with a lift-gate across the room entrance to allow a continuous-path option. With that change in staging, the way the track goes off-scene through the walls of one of the freight houses could be reworked to be a little less contrived. Some of the industries are a bit generic, so choosing signature industries that would add more port-side personality would help. A dedicated yard lead would be a help with multiple crews working. And certainly there would be room to work in a car float, one of my favorite rail-marine features, to add an element of interchange. There are a few other quibbles, but the overall concept is very sound.

I'm apparently not the only one who has been inspired by this design. A group of four French modelers has built a very fine N scale sectional layout called the Free Heaven Harbor Terminal that shares many features of Schoof's Free Haven Terminal design, even the passage through the freight house to staging. Here's their track plan and a scene from their website, which is definitely worth a visit.

Another element that makes Model Railroader's article on Schoof's Free Haven Terminal article so inspiring to me is the inclusion of suggestions for operation and some of the neat "artist's conception" perspective line illustrations that were often featured in MR articles of the era. These provide a hint of what the final layout might be like and add to the rail-marine atmosphere (even though some of the views are admittedly from angles that might not actually be possible on the layout).

Like many of my inspirational layouts, the Free Haven Terminal seems of an eminently "do-able" scope. I've been impressed and educated by dozens of other layouts in person and in the press, many of them large, decades-long efforts. But this handful of mostly more modest inspirational layouts still excites and motivates me personally to get off my duff and build something. I hope they've done a bit of the same for you.

Read the entire Inspirational Layouts series

Alameda and Galveston – Inspirational Locales #7

2008-10-26T17:48:00.000-07:00

For something a little different in this series, two real-life locales that continue to inspire me in model railroading. Both were covered in magazine articles with accompanying model railroad layout plans, but it's the prototypical locales themselves that had the lasting influence. These are the places that helped set the stage for my later interest in rail-marine and portside railroading.

The Alameda Belt Line on its namesake island near Oakland in California has been in the back of my mind since reading about it in Barry Wood's article in the April 1980 Model Railroader. This little line had a lot of interesting elements: ownership by, and interchange with, the Santa Fe and Western Pacific (via car float and car ferry for much of its life); character-filled industries; an interesting competition with the Southern Pacific; and a reasonably compact scope. My interest in it has only increased since moving to the Bay Area.

Wood's article included a track plan, primarily focusing on the Alaska Basin area of the prototype. While it's a pretty good plan, it was set in an era after the car floats and ferry had stopped running and did not reflect some of what I feel were the signature elements of the prototype, like the dual interlaced wyes. The area Wood focused on is still pretty interesting, with a wide variety of industries, some quite large:

I've been including some aspects of the ABL in my plans for my own N scale Oakland Harbor Belt Layout for some time. For example, the Alaska Basin area will look something like this when I get back to the garage version of the OHB.

Click here to read more about Alaska Basin on the OHB.

One of my friends has said, "Byron, you're obsessed with the ABL. Why not just model it instead of making something up?" Fair question -- and if there were decent Alco S-2s in N scale who knows if I might have taken that path -- but then again, the freedom of proto-freelancing offers the chance to include more traffic and other engaging elements lacking in the real-life ABL.

Galveston Island, Texas is another fascinating rail-marine environment, well described in Cyril Durrenberger's and Tom Eishenhour's May 1983 MR article on the Galveston Wharves Terminal Railway (GWT). While this article also includes a reasonable track plan, the real attraction to me was the map spread across the top of two facing pages: huge industries, wharves, piers, grain elevators, and container facilities; four major interchanging roads (SP, ATSF, BN, GH&H [MP-controlled]); and wide variety of commodities.

The concentration of railroading created by the port facilities makes for an amazing variety and scope of potential modeling. Maybe a little too much scope, in fact … while the ABL might be too small, Galveston is probably just too big. I've done one custom design inspired by Galveston so far, but it's hard to capture even a hint of the signature elements of the prototype on a mid-size or smaller trackplan. Maybe another opportunity will present itself one day. Today the GWT is known as the Galveston Railroad (AAR reporting marks GVSR). Those reporting marks are seen on thousands of Golden West Service cars across the country.

So, while it wasn't the model railroad track plans that appealed to me in these cases, the attractions of the real-life rail-marine prototypes were definitely a huge inspiration to my modeling concepts and vision today.

Next time, I'll conclude this series with a layout that, while far from perfect, puts many of the elements described so far into practice. Anyone have a guess which layout it might be?

Rick Mugele's "City Belt" – Inspirational Layout #6

2008-10-19T13:14:00.000-07:00

If you were to combine an innovative design imagination, the experience of real-life railroading, an interest in small-space operations, and an intriguing locale, you might, if you were very lucky, end up with Rick Mugele's HO 42"X80" City Belt switching layout. Besides the visible trackage seen here, one double-ended and two single-ended tracks are tucked below the visible yard, providing interchange and additional industries assumed to reside "beyond the benchwork".

Click here for a better view of the HO City Belt switching layout

Rick Mugele is a real-life railroader (now on the BNSF), and for years he has cranked out amazingly compact designs that challenge conventional thinking and stretch the envelope of what's possible. By 1995, when I encountered his City Belt design in a back issue of the Layout Design SIG's Layout Design News (LDN-8, August 1991), I was beginning to realize that model railroad operations could be a lot more engaging than I had imagined. Mugele's article described the real-life concept of "sure spots": cars aren't dumped willy-nilly into sidings, rather in many places they are required to be placed at a particular door, over an unloading grate, or below a discharge spout. The City Belt was provided as an example, based on real–life industries in Oakland and Richmond in California served by the (then) ATSF.

As compact as it is, the City Belt layout contains a couple of dozen "sure spots" – offering the same operations interest as much larger layouts that lack this added sophistication and realism of precisely spotting cars as on the prototype. This small layout includes key realism-boosting features that are lacking in the majority of the switching layout designs proliferating unchecked on the Internet (and even in the commercial press).

These all-too-seldom-seen desirable features include interchanges and yards – places for the loads and empties to travel to- and from. Industries are (relatively) large, with multiple tracks and multiple spots on many of those tracks, just like the real thing. Even in these tight quarters, there are no double-ended switchbacks that would require one industry to be emptied before another may be switched. For example, the "Safeway Lead" (my designation) extends into the lower right corner to allow room to work without disturbing cars already placed at other industries. And a pair of run-arounds allow everything to be shuffled as required to be placed into spot order for the facing- and trailing-point industries.

It took me a while to fully appreciate another interesting feature: Mugele's use of double-sided backdrops. Combined with the different levels of trackwork, it allows a clever and efficient "overlap" of layout space. For example, the lead into the Safeway building passes below the visible yard directly above it and the Safeway complex's walls form an industrial building bay at GATX as well as creating the backdrop between the scenes.

Beyond these design elements, Mugele's City Belt radically changed my thinking about operations. Besides just transportation (moving cars in trains), there was also the idea of distribution: efficiently picking up and placing cars at individual industries. And the idea that cars came from, and went to, "somewhere else" was clearly more realistic than moving a car from the vinegar plant three feet to the pickle factory and back again. I could see that even a small urban-themed layout could offer operating enjoyment by replicating some of the tight quarters and intricate switching of the real thing. (And Denton's Kingsbury Branch a couple of years later just added fuel to the fire!)

As much as I admire the City Belt, it's probably packed a bit too tightly to be practical for most builders as drawn. Curves wind down to less than 15" radius and grades are a stout 4 to 5% or more. But building this same layout in a 5'X8' or 5'X9' in HO would allow one to ease many of these issues and improve accessibility to the hidden track. Or, as suggested by Frank Jozaites in LDN-8, the yard could be swung off to the side as a shelf on an adjoining wall, a very nice improvement if space is available. In N scale, the layout might fit well on a hollow-core door (and would be a real improvement over many of the switching layout designs proffered for that space).

The most creative layout designers not only render innovative track plans, they show us ways to make whatever layout space we have more engaging and satisfying. Rick Mugele certainly falls into that category, and his City Belt still inspires me today.

"Old" Media or "New"? The Answer is "Yes"

2008-10-17T11:16:00.000-07:00

Model railroading media is a bit of a two-headed beast. On the one hand, many model railroaders tend to be technology-savvy. OK, let's face it, we're geeks (at least many of us). On the other hand, the hobby also attracts an older demographic that is often not as computer-friendly. So for every cry of, "Just publish everything on-line", there's an answer of "I like my paper magazines".

Personally, I don't think this is an either/or question. Certainly, circulation for all genres of printed media (not just model railroading publications) is down with the advent of the Internet. But I don't agree with those who claim that printed magazines will disappear in the next few years. And the reason I believe printed media will survive is that there is still an important difference in user experience between online media and printed publications. That difference might be described as "hunter" versus "gatherer".

In my experience, using on-line media is a hunting expedition – I'm usually looking for specific things that pique my interest. I'm not likely to read every forum posting, for example. Instead, I'll look through the topics to find the two or three that interest me and look only at those. Part of this is the sheer volume of chaff, but some of it is just the times, places, and tools that pertain when I am consuming this media (sitting in front of the screen).

Conversely, for me the printed publication lends itself to a "gatherer" approach. I'll thumb through all the pages of a magazine and linger briefly on a wider variety of topics, including some that might not otherwise interest me during a more purposeful "hunt". I can browse through a book or magazine while waiting at the dentist's office, before retiring, or while in the euphemism. For me, this less-structured, more exploratory way of consuming media is vital: it exposes me to new ideas and different approaches I wouldn’t necessarily delve into through more directed on-line reading.

And importantly, much of the on-line material is inherently self published – there usually are no editors for web pages (more's the pity). For me, editors often add value by contributing rigor, context, and focus. I appreciate printed publications partly because most have passed through an editorial step (although sometimes with the smaller publications it's hard to tell!). I also think there's value in the structure of a book or printed magazine. The author's and editor's construction, pacing, and organization add flavor and meaning to the objective facts.

So my basic premise is that print won't die anytime soon – partly because it provides a different kind of experience (at least for those like me). What I think will happen is continued evolution of both on-line and print media in model railroading. As an example, I think Kalmbach has done a decent job of extending their Model Railroader and Trains brands into cyberspace. This is challenging for a publication that has historically depended largely on print ad revenue to survive. And make no mistake, business plan transformation is orders of magnitude tougher than the nuances of on-line fonts and formats. [As an aside, one of the major issues roiling the newspapers isn't primarily that readers are abandoning them – it's that Craigslist and eBay took the classified advertising!] Kalmbach has had some on-line stumbles along the way, but the company is miles ahead of its model railroading publication competitors. I think they have done a reasonable job of bringing some of their editing and publishing strengths to the Internet. (And it's interesting to note that as Kalmbach incorporates more ads to create a viable revenue stream online, there are complaints from users. We do want it all, and all for free, don't we?)

On the Internet side, consider Joe Fugate's new ad-supported electronic magazine, Model Railroad Hobbyist, set to premier in January. On the surface, it's a pure "new media" model. But Joe has a long history not only as a video and web technology practitioner, but also as an editor and publisher of enthusiast printed publications, both in model railroading (the LDSIG's Layout Design Journal in the late '90s) and in other fields. I think (and hope) that Joe will bring some of the editing discipline typical of the print world to his e-zine venture. In my mind, Joe has the skills and experience to build this into a unique and successful publication.

I think we'll find that the ultimate result isn't wholly either/or, on-line or print. We'll see blending and crossover. As a writer, I've got a foot planted firmly in each camp, with future articles scheduled for publication both on-line and in print. I do spend a lot of time looking at the screen … but there are times to settle down with a great printed book or magazine, too.

The Inspirational Layouts series returns in the next post.

Sperandeo's San Jacinto Dist. – Inspirational Layout #5

2008-10-12T16:11:00.000-07:00

When the student is ready, the track plan appears. Or reappears, in this case. When I first saw Andy Sperandeo's 9X12 HO ATSF San Jacinto District plan in the February 1980 Model Railroader, it didn't make much of an impression. (Especially compared to the Carrabasset & Dead River in the same issue).

But by the time I encountered the plan again in the early 1990s, in Kalmbach's Track Planning Ideas from Model Railroader (1981), I had learned enough about model railroad layout planning to see and appreciate the track plan's innovative points.

Click here for a better view of the HO track plan sketch

The modest amount of trackwork that had seemed sort of boring before now looked much more realistic. Linking the plan to real places and the actual types of industries found in those locations created more interest. A layout based on out-and-back branch line switching, rather than endless round-and-round, seemed attractive. And the accessible staging, which had seemed like a waste of perfectly good layout space to me earlier, now enabled the engaging flow of traffic to- and from the "rest of the world". (This might have been the first time I was exposed to the concept of a fiddle yard, where consists might be reset between sessions.)

The San Jacinto District was not the first layout I had seen with most of these elements, but I was beginning to see how creating a track plan was an exercise in balance. Sperandeo's track plan was one of the few "theoretical" designs in that era to realistically address the need for adequate aisles, for sufficient staging to create the desired operations intensity, and a variety of operating schemes to address seasonality (and add operating interest). Sperandeo's track plan also exuded a personality – the atmosphere of southern California branch line railroading. This was a refreshing change from many of cookie-cutter layouts I had been seeing that seemed to all be set in the same generic eastern burg.

I was getting an inkling that there was more to model railroading than packing in loops of track. (Would that the masses posting their sorry CAD creations on the Internet might learn the same lesson.) Operating trackage, staging, room for scenery, operational theme, aisles for crew members, etc, all had to be considered in coming up with the track plan. Andy Sperandeo's relatively modest San Jacinto District plan inspired me to build my own knowledge of the myriad subtleties of layout design – a foundation I call upon nearly every day.

One of the more intriguing streaming audio channels I've come across is Frank's Americana on Live 365. Self-billed as "Cooking the music of the world in the melting pot of American life!", the channel mixes a wide variety of styles and eras. While bluegrass and newgrass are strongly represented, one might also hear Swing, Big Band, Jazz, and Rock. Ralph Stanley to Flying Burrito Brothers to James Gang to Louis Prima would not be an unusual set. There are occasional clinkers (some '60s Top-40 hits I just don't need to hear again -- ever), but there are far more nuggets than dross.

Denton's "Kingsbury Branch" – Inspirational Layout #4

2008-10-07T07:42:00.000-07:00

1996 was a pretty stressful year: new baby; pressure-packed job at an Internet giant; and an impending household move. It was clearly going to be a while before any layout was started, but I was still planning on building the proto-freelanced N scale Midland Pacific* once things settled down. And then another seed was planted that would eventually shift me away from the branchline/secondary mainline concept to a more urban terminal-switching theme.

Kingsbury Branch layout photo from Bill Denton's former website

Bill Denton's Milwaukee Road Kingsbury Branch in the January 1997 Model Railroader was another revelation. In a very compact space – and in N scale – Denton had created an appealing replica of a real-life area that worked as an operating layout. The urban scenery was realistic without requiring scale acres of benchwork. And the concentrated activity typical of a real urban terminal provided plenty of engaging operating potential without unduly straining plausibility.

Track plans from Bill Denton's former site

The Kingsbury Branch is built in two portable sections, each measuring 21 inches deep by 6 feet long. An unscenicked 4‑track staging yard connects at the left of the upper section shown here (which also provides "room to work" for the industry tracks at the far left of that section). Denton's original inspiration came from an article by Randy Willis in the April 1975 issue of Model Railroader on the real-life area. From photos in that article and visits to the area, Denton developed a track plan that emulates the real thing in many respects, handlaying code 55 turnouts and code 40 industrial tracks to maximize appearance. He also decided to kitbash and scratchbuild, rather than using off-the-shelf structure kits, to try to replicate the buildings more accurately.

Looking at the layout photos, I realized that the urban buildings were strikingly effective as backdrops, towering over the railroad passing below. The busy trackwork intersected the street grid at interesting angles and suggested a real business with real work to do. And the many sidings, sufficient runarounds, "off-spot" tracks, and numbered door "sure spots" added realistic operating interest without resorting to tedious switching puzzles. Denton described the operation of the layout in a follow up article in the May 1998 MR. He has taken the layout to various train shows and events, a real benefit of the sectional approach. (The original intention was that these sections were to eventually become part of a larger home layout, but I don't know if that ever occurred.)

Of course, it didn't hurt that Denton is an excellent modeler and photographer. The images in the MR articles showed me that N scale urban railroading could appear very realistic in a very small space. While I didn't give up the Midland Pacific idea immediately, a new concept of urban railroading began to form. Bill Denton's Kingsbury Branch completely changed my perception of N scale and opened my eyes to the possibilities of urban railroading in a very inspirational way.

*My layout design and operating plans for the Midland Pacific were covered in detail in the Layout Design SIG's Layout Design Journal # 35, December 2006.

Hayden's "C&DR" – Inspirational Layout #3

2008-10-05T20:36:00.000-07:00

One might be reminded of the Sesame Street ditty: "One of these things is not like the others …" Bob Hayden's proto-freelanced HOn30 Carrabasset and Dead River Railway (C&DR) layouts might seem unlikely inspirations, given my current personal focus on industrial urban layouts intended for operation. Sometimes, though, an inspiring layout is one that tells you not only something about your dreams, but also something about your inescapable realities.

View of the Carrabasset and Dead River from Allen Keller's Great Model Railroads #26.

I discovered the C&DR on the cover of the February, 1980 Model Railroader. The story inside described the development of the first C&DR, from a rented garage in San Francisco to Dave Frary's basement near Boston. Although I knew nothing about the Maine two-footers at the time, the layout photos were amazingly evocative of a unique time and place, separated by gauge and locale from the rest of North American railroading.

Trains were short and engines idiosyncratic. And the idea that a layout could evolve so dynamically over time as the builders' ideas changed and experience grew was a very new and exciting concept.

For a brief time, I was enthusiastic about modeling in HOn30 myself. "Brief" as in about a week -- once I discovered the paucity of commercial offerings in the local hobby shops, my ardor quickly cooled. And more importantly, I began to realize that it took a special combination of skills to make such an unusual prototype believable. Those early C&DR layouts benefited not only from Hayden's vision, but from both Hayden's and Dave Frary's exceptional modeling and scenery skills as well (thus the C&DR is justifiably one of MR's Landmark Layouts).

The low-key imagineered C&DR prototype encouraged space between scenes and uncrowded towns. But for that concept to succeed, the scenery had to be top-notch -- which in this case, it was, the builders having literally written the book on model railroad scenery. Even though the idea of an isolated and charismatic little railroad was very appealing, I began to recognize that pulling it off successfully would require space and modeling talent that I currently lacked. And the absence of meaningful interchange is an operating limitation that I could see would be unsatisfying.

So in a roundabout way, my interest and enthusiasm for the C&DR has translated into a focus on a more achievable (for me) concept: an industrial switching-oriented layout, the Oakland Harbor Belt. The OHB concept can justifiably cram more operating interest into my limited space and may not be as demanding of scenery skills to pull off convincingly.

The appeal of isolated little railroads continues for me, of course, in the form of my recurring infatuation with Hawaiian railroads. As I have read and enjoyed the many articles on the C&DR, I still find the layouts very inspiring and motivating. Hayden's unique concept and the builders' masterful implementation (aided and abetted by Frary's fine photography) always encourage me to get building. And certainly that qualifies the multiple instantiations of the Carrabasset and Dead River concept as very inspirational layouts, indeed.

Rule #1?

2008-10-03T10:17:00.000-07:00

There is an old adage in model railroading that describes "Rule #1" as: "It's my layout, I'll do what I like". Folks invoke "Rule #1" to justify double stack container trains pulled by old-timey 2‑6‑0s and French TGVs blasting around 1950s Pennsy layouts. Some folks also call upon "Rule #1" to rationalize all manner of dubious model railroad layout design choices: weird switchback industries, convoluted multi-path routes, etc.

For me personally, it's all good. If those are choices someone wants to make for their own layout, more power to them. One of the best parts about model railroading is the creative aspect that results in no two layouts looking the same. I do think it's a shame when a newcomer with questions is assaulted by one of these "Rule #1" types. "Who cares, it's only a hobby – we're all playing with trains – do whatever you like" is a common refrain.

Even stipulating that model railroading is indeed a hobby and not brain surgery, I think that is a disservice to a newcomer who doesn't know the best practices of the hobby or the whys and whens of real-life railroading. Personally, I think it's good to have some background on what works best in model or real-life railroading before deciding on a path that's really divergent. But hey, if you want to build a multi-path spaghetti bowl with four passes of track through each visible scene, knock yourself out!

What's been interesting to me is the number of Rule #1-ers who want me to agree with their choices. A byproduct of my modest little model railroad layout design service and published articles in the model press is that some folks seek me out to accost me with their "innovative" design ideas (many of which are throwbacks to 50-year-old modeling practices, by the way). These folks seem almost desperate to get my approval for their choices.

First, it's pretty silly to think that my approval matters. I'm just an opinionated lunkhead with a blog. (Wait … is that redundant?) Second, they've already chosen something they know I won't agree with – does it really seem likely that their pitch will be so persuasive that I'll be converted? "Oh gee, you're right, an 18" radius helix in HO is a great idea. And I'm sure the resulting grade will be no problem for your UP Big Boy hauling that Amtrak Superliner consist!"

One fellow (details changed slightly to protect the unconvinced) showed up at two of my clinics at the recent NMRA National Convention in Anaheim. Gripping his precious CAD HO 4X8 layout plan printout, he buttonholed me after each clinic to show me his unique approach. When I gently explained that the 6% grades and 15" radius curves seemed an unlikely match for his heavy mainline theme, he tersely responded with -- wait for it -- "Well it's my layout and I'll do what I want!" Fair enough. But if that's the case, why ask me … twice?

The same thing happens in forum and email exchanges. I try to suggest to folks that there is a reason some trackwork configurations are unsatisfactory: they've been found not to work as well as others. It's not some shadowy model railroad-industrial complex that's conspiring to keep them secret. But still, people seem anxious for me to agree with these poor ideas, especially if they first saw them in a published track plan.

Bottom line, if you're going to invoke Rule #1 for your own layout, fine by me. But if you feel some trepidation about the path you're on, maybe it's because there is a reason for some concern. Spending some time learning about model railroad layout design best practices and real-life railroad practices will help you make an informed decision when you decide to diverge from the well-traveled path.

Next post, the Inspirational Layouts series returns ...

Westcott's "Switchman's Nightmare" – Inspirational Layout #2

2008-09-26T08:21:00.000-07:00

Although I wasn't actively doing any model railroading in the late 1970s, I was still reading books and magazines and thinking about layouts. Like probably everyone in the hobby at that time (and many today), I owned a copy of Kalmbach's 101 Track Plans for Model Railroaders. Once, while visiting out-of-town friends, I came down with a nasty flu bug. While my friends went out for the day's activities, I resigned myself to the TV and reading, including another pass through the copy of 101 Trackplans I had brought along on the trip.

I had been through the book a couple of times at this point, focused mainly on the larger layouts in the later pages. So I decided to take a look at the smaller plans in the front of the book. Loop. Loop. Loop. Hey, wait a minute. Maybe it was my somewhat febrile state, but I started to see something different in plan #6, Linn Westcott's "Switchman's Nightmare".

Click here for a better view of this HO switching layout

For the first time, I pictured how cars placed in the yard at the right might be delivered to industries and vice-versa. And for some reason, the tracks at the lower left struck me as a large industry this time, rather than another yard as I had seen it before. Grabbing some scratch paper, I drew crude representations of short trains and tore the paper into little bits. As I moved these around the diagram in the book, I started to really understand what a runaround was, why those switch leads at the upper left and lower right where there, and how even a small layout without a continuous run might be fun.

Although the fever (both literal and model railroading) passed, the concepts of the Switchman's Nightmare layout stayed with me. As I learned more about multi-spot industries and prototypical operations, I began to see possibilities for more complexity and interest in Westcott's compact shelf switching layout.

Part of the appeal of this layout is its structural simplicity: runaround; yard tracks; and industry tracks, creatively overlapped to make the best use of the limited space. This basic structure has been used in hundreds (maybe thousands) of layouts, including John Allen's more-famous but less-realistic (in my view) Timesaver switching game. (It's interesting to me to note that the Switchman's Nightmare predates the Timesaver by about a decade.)

Even though regular readers know how much I dislike the traditional HO 4X8 track plan, an interesting exercise is to use the Switchman's Nightmare configuration as a an HO 4X8.

I've used similar configurations in a number of small layouts or as part of larger layouts, including the 1'X6' N scale Alameda Belt Line design from Model Railroad Planning 2005 shown below. Another interesting adaptation I've done was an HO version sized and configured much like Westcott's original but set up as a diesel service facility for a client with only a modest space but a mess o' engines to display.

Click here for description of this N scale switching layout

The basic Switchman's Nightmare layout can be improved, where space permits, by the addition of a bit of length to allow for longer and more useful switch leads and runaround. I've seen a version on the web built by a club that had removable extensions to be added to the switch leads at each end when used at shows. Designating the tracks on the lower left as the multiple tracks of a large industry (factory, paper mill, brewery, etc., etc.) with sure spots could provide a lot of operating interest. And yeah, the switchback industries at the upper right bug me a little but could be easily addressed.

That a very simple trackwork configuration could offer such richness of operation was, and continues to be, a delightful surprise and ongoing inspiration. Just proves that "there's almost always room for operations" -- and that definitely places Westcott's little gem in my list of Inspirational Layouts. When the series returns, something completely different.

Whither the NMRA National?

2008-09-22T20:23:00.000-07:00

I've been thinking a bit lately about the NMRA National Convention concept. I've attended three now, beginning in 1996 in Long Beach, then 2005 in Cincinnati and recently this year's event in Anaheim. The NMRA National is a bit of a model railroading smorgasbord, and I tend to graze the offerings, rather than indulge in all of it.

But that still leaves a lot of activities for me during the convention. Because I operate a modest model railroad-related business, the convention offers a chance to connect with current, past, and prospective clients, although much of that can be done through other means. I enjoy catching-up with friends from distant parts of the country and globe. I've always liked layout visits, but since I'm not one for bus tours, I usually only see layouts on the Layout Design SIG self-guided tours. It's fun to offer some short layout design help sessions as part of the LDSIG's activities. And with all of these, the thing I enjoy most is presenting and attending clinics.

The Host Committee of the Los Angeles Division of the Pacific Southwest Region did a fine job of organization and I enjoyed the events and activities of the convention. I also took a brief turn around the National Train Show (held in conjunction with the convention) and saw a few interesting things, including the modular layout set-ups that are my favorite part of any train show.

I'm not well-connected with the volunteer leadership of the NMRA (now there's a thankless job!), so I am not sure what their expectations were for attendance at the convention and participation by vendors at the National Train Show. But a few people were talking about the fact that the convention was more lightly-attended than hoped and that there weren't as many vendors at the train show as hoped-for. Part of this is probably that it was held on the west coast. I've certainly heard anecdotal reports that some attendees and vendors don't like to venture west of the Mississippi. (Of course, they don't mind asking those of us who live on the west coast to make the reciprocal trek.)

In any case, some of this discussion got me to thinking about the NMRA National Convention and what I would suggest to the NMRA if they were my marketing client and my task was to increase participation in the Convention. Now I don't know if any of the things I am going to mention are even possible to change or eliminate, or if there are reasons I'm not aware of that things are the way they are. So, unburdened by the constraints the NMRA likely actually faces, I'll blithely proceed to give my observations and opinions on four main points.

The hobby has changed

First, I think the hobby has changed in a fundamental way from the time that NMRA conventions began in 1935 and even from the 1960s and 1970s. There are a vastly broader range of interests, scales, backgrounds, products, etc., etc., than even a few years ago. This specialization of the hobby means that fewer of us are doing the exact same thing. There was a time when it seemed model railroading was almost entirely slightly whimsical western layouts. Then came the HO Appalachian coal haulers.

But today, we have eye-popping variety and more information than ever to let each of us explore our personal interests within the hobby even more deeply. Not just operations, but the intricacies of Time Table and Train Order. Not just diesel modeling, but duplicating exact phases of particular locomotives at a specific time and place. Not just a general interest in western prototypes, but participation in historical societies dedicated to preserving information on the day-to-day activities of a specific real-life railroad.

The NMRA National Convention is very tentatively beginning to become a "big tent" under which a number of specific groups offer activities, such as the Layout Design and Operations Special Interest Groups, the Railroad Prototype Modelers, and others. This is a terrific change from a decade or so ago when the SIGs were seen as rivals to the NMRA (sometimes, by both sides!).

But these SIG functions are still ancillary activities, in some cases exclusively for existing members of the groups. The Convention could be a chance for the NMRA to highlight these groups and many more, better communicating the diversity in the hobby and attracting more participation though partnerships with the SIGs, historical societies, and the like. Why not work to bring the Toy Train fans, the Narrow Gaugers, the N Scalers together in some way for a "Convention of Conventions"? Bigger buzz, bigger crowds, bigger benefit for the hobby in the long term … even if each of these constituencies has to give something up in the short term.

The world has changed

Second, I think it is important to acknowledge that the world has changed. The growth of the Internet has implications for the Convention and the Train Show. With forums and email, meeting and staying in touch with like-minded model railroaders does not require a national face-to-face get-together once a year. We can instantly connect with other modelers and see images of what they are working on – even on a daily basis, if we choose. And the same is true of model railroading vendors. Even the smallest garage-shop manufacturer can put up a website for practically nothing and be accessible to modelers around the world. No need to spend the significant time and money on travel and a booth at the Train Show.

In both cases, the Internet removes some impetus for the Convention and Train Show but conversely creates a terrific tool for promotion and partnerships. I can't remember seeing a single on-line ad for Anaheim in 2008. It's a huge effort, perhaps too much for a volunteer organization, but the NMRA could do a much better job of reaching out through the Internet to the many varied constituencies to bring them together for a more engaging and interesting Convention.

The seasons change

Third, it's always seemed odd to me that the Convention and train show are held in (usually) July. July! Not only is the weather a bit unpleasant (hot and/or muggy) almost anywhere in the US in July, it is the nadir of model railroading activity for most people. Typically people's model railroading juices get flowing in the fall and through the winter. I've been given two reasons for this date. One explanation is that this allows teachers and students to attend the Convention, which takes place during the week. The other is that convention facility costs are at their lowest in the middle of summer, when most people are on vacation.

Whatever the reasoning behind the July choice, I'm pretty sure that it doesn't make sense in today's world. People are more mobile, and even teachers can take time off in the fall and winter. Yes, students would have trouble participating during the week, but who says the Convention must take place primarily Monday through Friday (see below)? And most students would be better reached through the web and other activities than a convention that very, very few of them can afford, especially when travel is included. In my opinion, the Convention should move to the fall, when general modeling interest is higher.

Time for a change?

And the fourth topic to address, perhaps the elephant in the room, is the National Train Show. The Train Show dominates Friday and the weekend, which could be the prime days for people to participate in the Convention. It seems to me that the Train Show is the tail wagging the Convention dog. Now it may be that the fees the vendors pay to exhibit at the train show are an important component of the NMRA's operating budget, so maybe you gotta dance with the one that brung ya.

From its website, the National Train Show describes itself thusly: "The show's only purpose is to promote the hobby in a professional manner, to the hobby industry and to the public at large." Is this a mission that should still be carried out as a commercial show? Couldn't that be, indeed, shouldn't that be, the purpose of the Convention? Should the NMRA with its Train Show be in competition with the other train shows around the country?

What would be the best use of the weekend of the Convention, if the goal is to increase the hobby? Wouldn't it be to put the best parts of the Convention into these prime hours, when more can attend? Aren't there enough other opportunities for manufacturers to communicate with the trade through the Internet, the annual iHobby Expo (Rosemont) Show, and other venues? And aren't there plenty of opportunities for manufacturers to communicate to their customers though magazine ads, the Internet, and the multitude of other train shows that have sprung up in the last decade or two? The National Train Show only dates to 1988 and I don't know what preceded it. But I wonder if it isn't time to consider its relationship with the Convention and make some changes.

It won't change overnight

I recognize there is plenty of inertia to keep things as they are and I am not naive enough to think that this blog entry will change them. But even small steps toward creating a "bigger tent" of partnerships, using the Internet more effectively, changing to a more appropriate date, and considering how better to use the weekend days for the Convention itself could pay dividends. I've enjoyed my three NMRA National Conventions so far and hope to enjoy many more. These changes might make it attractive for many more to enjoy the Convention as well.

Thanks for reading all the way through. The Inspirational Layouts series will return in the next post.

Smaus' "Port of LA" – Inspirational Layout #1

2008-09-11T07:53:00.000-07:00

By 1990, I was thinking off-and-on about building what would have been yet another generic model railroad – but there was no real "spark" to my ideas. My coworkers and I frequented an Italian restaurant located in a shopping center alongside a hobby shop. After lunch, I would often wander into the shop and take a look at the magazine rack. What I saw while leafing through the December 1990 issue of Model Railroader literally froze me in my tracks. I actually momentarily felt as if I was in one of those scenes in a movie where a crucial newspaper headline whirls suddenly into view.

Bob Smaus' "Port of LA" project layout as described in Model Railroader Dec 1990-Mar 1991. Photo from the A-line/Proto Power West site.

Bob Smaus' photos of his 30"X72" HO module hit me hard. Here was a slightly gritty, workaday setting, down by the docks. Tracks purposefully crossed one another in a bustling industry scene. And all in a few square feet.

Click here for a better view of the HO module track plan

This was the firm, swift kick I needed to jump back into thinking seriously about the hobby. Real industries with real work to do — not generic-looking quaint little fantasy factories covered in novelty siding. And it seemed, well, buildable.

As I followed the project series over the next three issues I began to think more about why real railroads exist – to move goods from industry to industry, not just run around in circles. It helped that the Port of LA project was set in my home region of Southern California. So much of the rest of what I had been seeing in the model press at the time was Appalachian coal hauling and creaky Colorado narrow gauge. Smaus' little layout felt more like something to which I could personally relate. And although I didn't realize it at the time, the nascent seeds of a port railroad that had been planted years before were beginning to sprout. (More on that later in this series.)

Bob Smaus is a supremely talented modeler, skilled photographer, and a great writer (his day job was as an editor at L.A.'s major daily newspaper). He used all those skills to bring the Port of LA module to life in a way that affected me deeply. It's not an overstatement to say that I am in the hobby today because of seeing this series.

The Port of LA was also featured in the Kalmbach book 6 HO Railroads You Can Build. The module itself eventually found its way to A-Line/Proto Power West, where it has been used in promoting their products. And of course, Bob went on to build his fabulous SP Southern California themed layout (MR, July 2006, et al). [His very first layout effort hadn't been too shabby either: MR, Oct 1989.]

Of course, packing all of this action into 15 square feet of module that can also function on its own makes for a lot of compromises. In looking at the track plan now with more experience, I recognize the significant limitations of the multi-switchback scheme, where some industry tracks must be emptied before others can be switched. In fact, some industries would probably be disrupted just to use the convoluted runaround path. A container yard track only about 16" long in HO is pretty limiting, and it would certainly be more realistic to extend the layout into more space, creating "breathing room" between the different industries and easing some of these issues (as Mark Lawler did in building a representation of Smaus' Port of LA into his N scale layout).

But those practical layout design considerations and concerns were for another day, far down the road. As an inspiration, a motivator, even a slightly adrenaline-fueled model railroading jump start, Bob Smaus' Port of LA module takes a leading position in my list of Inspirational Layouts. And that crystal-clear San Fernando Valley Fall day in November 1990 when I first saw the layout article still ranks as one of my favorite model railroad memories.

Inspirational Layouts -- Introduction

2008-09-09T10:15:00.000-07:00

Model Railroader magazine's year-long series on Landmark Layouts has been interesting. For the most part, I find the editors' selections hard to argue with. Most of these layouts and/or their builders changed the hobby for the better. In addition, most of these layouts are/were of very high quality (for their time) and advanced new ideas and concepts, from scenery to operations to replicating prototypes.

By the nature of the designation, the Landmark Layouts MR selected are something of a "best of" list. As I considered them, I found myself thinking about a handful of layouts that I have personally found uniquely inspirational. They are not the largest, most finished, or necessarily the most innovative — and some might not find their way onto anyone's list of top layouts for those reasons.

These are layouts (in some cases track plans only) that motivated me to build, that opened my thinking, and that helped me develop the vision and concepts for my current personal design. Note that these are not necessarily "perfect" designs. Many have elements (one might call them quirks or flaws) that would annoy me over time and I certainly wouldn’t choose some of those configurations for myself or a client design. But there is something about the overall approach that influenced me greatly when I first saw them and still does today.

There are many other fine layouts which I admire, an amazing number of which are within driving distance from me in the bay area (and one within walking distance!). They offer many lessons to be learned and operating experiences to enjoy. But the inspirational layouts gave me a creative whack on the side of the head and caused me to see the hobby, and my potential path within it, in a new way — even though many of these layouts and plans are much more modest.

I'll cover these inspirational layouts in blog entries over the coming weeks, sometimes with a track plan, and discuss the reasons they grabbed me and didn't let go. I'll try to communicate the positive and, well, inspiring elements of these designs, along with perhaps a few comments about their weaknesses. Watch for the first Inspirational Layout blog post later this week.

A Bridge (Route) too Far?

2008-09-03T20:26:00.000-07:00

One of the interesting things about working with people on custom model railroad track plans is seeing the hobby from others' viewpoints. Sometimes it's a window back in time. A fellow has been conversing with me about a layout he'd like to set in the desert West, basically from Las Vegas to Reno. A look at a railroad atlas shows no railroad on that route – and a look at a highway atlas shows why.

This is pretty sparsely populated territory, to put it charitably. In fact, Darius Ogden Mills, one of the backers of the real life narrow gauge Carson and Colorado (which eventually became the SP's famous last remaining narrow gauge in the area) remarked that they had built their railroad "… three hundred miles too far or three hundred years too soon". And my prospective client's proposed survey seems just as remote, seeing as it mostly follows Route 95, called by some the loneliest road in America. (Nevada's connecting Route 50 vies for the same dubious honor).

OK, there would probably be some mineral and military business along the way (maybe the odd classified shipment of parts from downed UFOs to Area 51), but hardly enough to justify a four- or five-hundred mile rail investment in real life. When I met with the prospective client at the NMRA Convention in Anaheim in July, I asked, "So what were you thinking of as traffic generators on this layout?"

He looked at me as if I could not possibly have asked a dumber question. (For some reason, this happens to me a lot, so I am familiar with the expression). "Why, it's a bridge route, of course," he replied. "It connects the Union Pacific in Las Vegas to the Southern Pacific in Reno." Then he went on to name a number of well-known layouts based on the premise of connecting two Class 1s, noting that he could justify dozens of trains a day across the high desert based on the size of the two connecting roads.

Ah, yes, the pure bridge route. Famed in model railroading lore and relatively rare in real life. As I thought back, I remembered that when I was reading model magazines in the 1970s and 1980s, the bridge route concept came up a lot. Sometimes as an excuse for trackage rights (which is not the same thing as a bridge route, strictly speaking), sometimes as justification for heavy through traffic in an area otherwise lacking in on-line sources. And it's certainly true that this has been used as the basis for many layouts over the years.

Nowadays, many people recognize that the Class 1 railroads would rather keep traffic on their own rails as much as possible, so cars will be hauled hundreds of "extra" miles in a roundabout fashion to where the Class 1s have an existing connection and interchange. While there are a few true bridge routes that existed over the years due to accidents of ownership history or geography, they are pretty rare. Shortlines and smaller railroads are much more likely to exist as feeders to one or more Class 1s than as an alternate routing between them. I've mentioned Central California Traction and the Modesto and Empire Traction in the blog in the past. These railroads have connections to multiple Class 1s, but don't typically bridge traffic from one of those large railroads to the other. Instead, they connect their on-line industries to multiple Class 1s through interchange at multiple points.

This realistic pattern makes for a more interesting justification and concept to me than straining credibility with a bridge route, as well as creating more of the industry switching and interchange activity I enjoy. But hey, that's just me. And my client? Well, he's still itchin' for that dry and dusty bridge route, so we'll see how it all comes out. (And he's good-natured about seeing these musings on the blog) It will be a little time-travel for me back to the layout concepts of the '70s. Just hope I don't have to wear the clothes -- again.

Remembering the First

2008-08-23T16:03:00.000-07:00

Ah, young love. So intense, at times so misguided. I was reminded of one of my first model railroad "crushes" the other day. Going through some old papers, I found a printout of my first serious layout design. It was done with crude turnout templates in Powerpoint(!) and probably dates from about 1989-90. I describe the plan as "serious" and not "good" because there are definitely some issues. But I remember being intensely focused on the concept for a few weeks. As with any old flame, some memories are more than a little embarrassing, but there are some warm thoughts, too.

I sketched out the plan in 3rdPlanIt and (remarkably) everything fits – but I resisted the urge to correct or improve anything. Twenty years later, some of the details are a little hazy anyway. The overall track locations were suggested by a layout I had seen in an NTRAK publication, which had a sort of a hilly pretzel overcrossing configuration separated by a backdrop from a narrow yard area along one long edge. Benchwork was to be a hollow core door. I had only just started thinking about the hobby again after a long time away and was considering N scale for the first time.

Click here for a better view of the layout

I had recently lived in Carpinteria, CA and the design vaguely suggests that area. The pier or wharf near Rincon was inspired by a short, high pier the Chevron company owned near Carpinteria to load men and equipment onto boats for transfers to the offshore oil platforms nearby. In my reimagining, this pier would somehow serve railcars. An interchange connection was imagined to the SP (which actually runs through the area) and the main on-line industries were citrus packing and some sort of oil-related industry. Both were important industries in the region. I tried to divide the small footprint into a few different scenes, although the backdrops might have proved a little tricky in actual construction.

I see a number of obvious things I would do differently today. The stub-ended yard tracks should point in the opposite direction, at least given where the interchange connects and where "Midway" is located. I think I may have imagined this as a shortline that would work the interchange, build a train, run out to Midway and Naranja, then runaround and return (or was it the other way around?). Too many tracks are parallel to the edges of the benchwork, and the model railroad cliché of "an industry track in every corner" is well-represented.

Hidden or secluded sections completed a continuous run and the roughly 2% grade should have been workable. I don't remember what I was thinking of calling it, but the "Rincon Northern" might have been appropriate (the California coast runs roughly East-West in the area). I also don't recall if I simply wasn't thinking of staging at that point or had purposely left it out in favor of the shortline-with-interchange idea.

This little plan was never built. I became involved with a friend's layout based on the Santa Maria Valley Railroad (see Model Railroad Planning 2004 or view the layout plan online here) and my own interests turned to more prototype-inspired designs. Looking back, I think it would have been a great boost for my own modeling if I had taken the time to build and operate this simple little project, even with the flaws. In any case, it was fun to revisit a past infatuation. [And a great way to procrastinate on the clean-up I was supposed to be doing the day I rediscovered this track plan.]

Speaking of firsts, I was enjoying Gillian Welch's album Time (the Revelator) last week. Her haunting bluegrass/folk/alt-county style with musical partner David Rawlings is well displayed in this album, which includes the slightly melancholy reminiscence "My First Lover". Welch might be best known for her work on the soundtrack to the movie Brother, Where Art Thou, but her music is a very intriguing mix and not limited to old-timey tunes. Rawlings adds sparse but moving fills and creative leads on acoustic guitar that build the atmosphere of each tune. Great record!

Cardiff Giant Layouts and other Fairy Tales

2008-08-15T10:29:00.000-07:00

The Internet is a mixed bag for model railroading. It provides tremendous benefits in research and information. But it has also given rise to a particular brand of tall tale that just leaves me shaking my head. Every few months a thread surfaces in a forum describing someone's plans to build a big layout. And when I say "plans", I really mean, "hallucinations".

Many of these folks don't actually have the skills or time available for such an undertaking, and almost by definition they don't have the financial wherewithal. But they are just sure the owner of that abandoned lot behind Aunt Tilly's house won't mind if they throw up a post frame mini-warehouse and start building a layout.

Next come weeks of on-line hand-wringing over which brand of locomotives are best suited to the envisioned 60 scale miles of main line, what manner of sheetrock screws to use to build the mezzanine for the crew lounge, and whether an elevator or just an escalator would be preferable to move operators between the three levels of layout without falling too far behind their train. And how will we build floor supports for the hot tub in the dispatcher's office?

And the forum-ites jump right in – offering that particular wild mix of speculation and overwrought amateur engineering that the Internet incubates like fungus in a fetid hothouse. Soon the forum is filled with talk of gluelam beams and solar panels vs. in-house biomass co-gen plants for powering the twenty-five thousand kilowatts of layout lighting. Heady stuff, that!

And somehow, nobody ever asks a few simple questions of the original dreamer. Is there really time, space and money for a project of this scope? How long will it take? Are you at a place in your life where you are sure that future education, job opportunities or relationships won't require a move within that timeframe? Might you not be better off with a more modest layout today, perhaps built in sections, to allow for life's twists and turns? Nope, everybody's just too happy to go along with the fantasy.

After a few weeks or months of delirium, the original poster and his grandiose dream disappear, undone by some unforeseen reality check. And then the next romantic arrives and the process begins anew.

Why do so many join in, when most must know that what's being proposed is unlikely at best? I guess we all want to believe in fairy tale giants – creatures bigger and more powerful than mere mortals. George Hull's Cardiff Giant was an elaborate hoax that tens of thousands bought into at 50 cents a pop, to the tune of $30,000 (in 1869 dollars!). Fossilized stone giants might be slightly harder to accept than the quixotic plans of some model railroad dreamers, but it seems there is always a gullible crowd for Gulliver‑esque layout fables.

Beverly Hills 502.50

2008-07-28T09:03:00.000-07:00

It’s known more for movie stars, shopping, and as the location for a slightly sleazy 1990s TV show, but there was also a gritty side to Beverly Hills. And no, I’m not talking about Jed and all his kin. It turns out there was some real-life railroading going on in Beverly Hills (SP Milepost 502.5), Santa Monica, and West Los Angeles into the 1970s.

Mike Jarel has written a very interesting article in the most recent Trainline magazine (#96, Summer 2008), published by the Southern Pacific Historical and Technical Society, that traces the area’s history as remnants of the Pacific Electric’s interurban service (among others). Jarel grew up nearby and worked on the SP in the area, so the article is definitely written from a knowledgeable perspective.

By the 1960s, Southern California was booming and the need for rail deliveries of building materials, appliances, food products and the like was growing rapidly. Pacific Electric operated its own freight service (dieselized after 1956) in what it called the Western District until the full absorption into the SP in 1965, when the parent road took over operations.

There were small yards, runarounds, some street running, and a variety of industries sprinkled around the area. I’m really fascinated by these small urban terminal switching areas, and this is another example from a somewhat unlikely locale. The small yard at Sentous (near the intersection of today’s San Diego and Santa Monica Freeways) served multiple locals, with haulers from the larger downtown yards picking up and setting out blocks of cars. The industries and railroad facilities were of model-able size and included some very recognizable customers.

A series of Free-Mo modules duplicating some of these areas would be a great start on a model railroad that could be easily expanded or might have to be moved one day. By coincidence, my friend Trevor Marshall’s article in the August 2008 issue of Railroad Model Craftsman describes just such an approach (based on a different prototype and area, Peterboro, ON). Sentous yard could be modeled or represented by a pivoting sector plate as Trevor and Pierre Oliver did on the Peterboro project.

An approach like this could certainly provide more long-term operating enjoyment than the mindless loops on plywood sheets usually promoted by the commercial press for modest layouts. But don’t get me started on that. Instead, kudos to Mike Jarel, Trainline and its editor John Signor, and to Trevor Marshall and RMC for showcasing some very interesting prototypes and layout concepts this month.

See you in Anaheim

2008-07-10T14:41:00.001-07:00

For those of you planning to attend the NMRA Convention next week in Anaheim, I hope you’ll drop by one of my clinics to say hello. I’m presenting two clinics, “Creating an Operating Session” and “Layout Design from the Prototype”. I’m also participating as a panelist with a number of former editors of the Layout Design SIG’s Layout Design Journal to discuss “Layout Design Trends”.

The operations-oriented clinic will attempt to cover everything from car movement to train control to crew management and human factors. Obviously, an hour-long clinic will just scratch the surface of the topic, but hopefully it will be useful for those beginning to explore operations on their own layouts.

The clinic on designing from the prototype will hopefully interest those considering prototype-based layouts, freelanced layouts, and everything in between. I’ll try to share a bit about the thought process I find myself going through with most projects. Model railroad layout design is all about the trade-offs and compromises, and there are multiple junctures in the process where this comes into play.

The layout design trends panel discussion (Tuesday at 4pm) will be an interesting look inside the minds of a number of accomplished modelers and hobby thinkers. And me. Some preliminary email discussions among the panelists suggest that we will bring at least a few different viewpoints to the table. Model railroad layout design ain’t rocket science, but there are some interesting new ideas as well as older ideas being applied in new ways.

Hope to see you there.

Greatest. Baseball. Announcer. Ever. I’ve been spending time in Southern California recently helping out with some family matters and have had a chance to catch a few L.A. Dodgers broadcasts. Even though I was always much more of an Angels fan growing up, Dodgers broadcaster Vin Scully is still the very best there has ever been at his craft, in my opinion. Scully never over-hypes a moment and has an instinctive knack for drawing the listener or viewer into the game with a pertinent fact or stat delivered in a relaxed and engaging manner.

Scully gives the game itself “room to breathe” – and with that, he smoothly communicates the ebb-and-flow rhythm that’s the natural pace of baseball pitch-to-pitch. It’s like watching the game with an old friend who happens to be incredibly knowledgeable (and has a research team backing him up). I imagine Scully will be retiring sometime soon, so it’s been great to have a chance to enjoy his understated excellence again. Thanks, Vin!

Modules and Sections and Dominoes, Oh My!

2008-07-01T10:00:00.000-07:00

This is going to be one of those model railroad layout design screeds that makes me feel slightly better but has no discernible impact on the hobby whatsoever. Ready? Here goes: the terms in the title above are not synonyms!!

Sections are just what the name implies. They are chunks of layout. They’ve been built separately for easier transportation, construction, etc. They often have legs so that they may stand alone, but could be suspended from a wall or between other sections. Sections may be flat-topped or open grid or some combination or variation. (Typically, they are not L-girder for obvious reasons.) Sections may be any shape or size. A sectional layout typically is built to fit together in one particular configuration – the sections are not interchangeable without some rework or addition of new bridging sections for a new space.

Modules are sections of layout that have been designed to a standard like NTRAK, Free‑Mo, or (many) others so that they may be interchangeably combined with other modules to form a layout. Some of these standards are national or international in scope, others defined by a single club, informal group, or individual. These standards define the track and electrical connections for mating ends. In some cases, the size and/or aspect ratio of modules are specified, but this is not universal. Adjoining modules may be built by the same or different people … but the interface between them is standardized. That’s what makes them modules. Sometimes people choose to build multi-module sets where the intermediate interfaces may not be built to the standard, but the ends are, to permit connections with modules built by others. The key is the standard interface at the ends. Ergo, all modules are sections, but not all sections are modules.

The term “domino” was borrowed by David Barrow to describe 2’X4’ flat-topped layout sections with legs. See, they look like a domino – with the flat top and 2X4 aspect ratio – just like a domino, get it? Thus, all dominoes are sections, but not all sections are dominoes. (By the way, dominoes may be an OK way to build some types of layout, but they are a really bad way to design a layout, in my humble opinion. But that’s a rant for another day.)

["Doorminoes", by the way, are a pretty cool idea: layouts or layout sections built on hollow core doors. Doorminoes have been used and popularized by Dave Clemens, among others.]

Let’s review:
- Sections are chunks of layout; size, shape, and track and electrical interfaces between sections are not standardized
- Modules are sections built to a standardized defined trackwork and electrical interface for interchangeability
- Domino is a term to describe a specific aspect ratio flat-topped section

OK, got it?

Hey, I do feel a little better.

Constraints make you clever

2008-06-19T14:00:00.000-07:00

I just finished one model railroad layout design project and I’m in the middle of another that seem not to have a lot in common. The first was a reworking of a traditional style HO 5X9 layout into a slightly longer space. But the owner wanted to keep the “old-school” feel and features: a main oval, reversing loops and connections, no staging, etc., etc.

The other is an HO layout of a specific real-life railroad, locale, and era. The space is large, but irregular, with a number of doors, obstructions, and areas that must be kept clear. On-hand engines are finicky, so larger radii and turnouts are the order of the day.

The common link between these two projects for me? Constraints -- those sometimes-frustrating “givens” that one must deal with in coaxing a satisfying layout into a specific space. With the traditional design, it was a matter of managing radii, track-to-track spacing, and (especially) grades, all the while creating enough "breathing room" for some operating interest, scenic opportunities and some on-hand structure kits. An inch or two can mean a lot.

In the larger prototype-based layout, we’re trying to balance the desire for somewhat accurately depicting a number of scenes over nearly 200 miles of real-life railroad within the realities of finite space and the minimum radius demanded by the brass locomotives. The optimal location for a turnback loop squeezes aisles and adjoining benchwork uncomfortably. Here, too, an inch or two can mean a lot.

In turns out that I really enjoy working through these kinds of challenges. (Good thing, too, because they seem to crop up in every project.) It’s hard for me to relate to the interest some find in crafting pie-in-the-sky plans for oversized spaces they’ll never actually have. What’s the fun of layout design in a gymnasium? (Check that, if you happen to have a gymnasium, I’m available and happy to help.) To me, it’s exciting to finally come upon a great way to coil things into the space after trying a lot of alternatives and to suddenly see opportunities for locating specific scenes at an appropriate bend in the resulting benchwork footprint.

Working with constraints makes you clever, I think. Experts in brain morphology and function tell us that exercising our brains in different and challenging ways helps our brains stay younger. My layout design gray matter is getting a pretty good workout lately – gotta feel the burn.

I had the chance a few weeks ago to hear dobro master Jerry Douglas in concert. His music defies categorization to some degree, but springs from bluegrass roots (as evidenced by his long-standing collaboration with Alison Krauss and Union Station). His band was first class (but why do the lead guitar players always have it cranked up to 11, no matter the venue?) and Douglas has a very dry sense of humor that illuminated some of the playful spirit in his tunes. He is widely regarded as the best to ever play the instrument, and it was a joy to experience the virtuosity in real life. The new CD is titled Best Kept Secret and goes a bit more in a jazz direction than some of his earlier work. I’m slightly more partial to the more blues- and bluegrass-inflected albums, but it’s still a keeper!

It was the Pantry

2008-05-08T14:32:00.000-07:00

Yes, the pantry finally did it. When the previous owners remodeled the kitchen in our 40+ year old house some fifteen or so years ago, they chose the least expensive cabinets available. Pressed wood and staples -- and not enough of either. From the time we moved in, the cabinets have been slowly returning to their primordial state, that is to say, literally disintegrating.

Five-minute epoxy and aluminum mending plates have served to fix some of the major cabinet crevasses over the years we’ve been in the house, but a few months ago there was a huge crash from the kitchen. One wall of the pantry had decided to part company from its loosely-coupled companions and the large shelves crashed to the bottom like falling floors in a Warner Brothers cartoon. Off to the hardware store for threaded rod and metal plates (and more epoxy), and the pantry was soon back to some semblance of function. [Oh yeah, and company was coming that evening for dinner. No kidding.]

But that was the last straw for the lovely wife, who started using profanity like “kitchen remodel” and “push out that wall”. And so we’ve started down the long twisted path of major home improvement.

“What’s this got to do with model railroading?” one might reasonably ask. Some may remember the famous poem “For the Want of a Nail”, republished in Benjamin Franklin’s Poor Richard’s Almanack. The basic premise of the rhyme is that the loss of a nail leads to the loss of a horseshoe, then the horse and rider, then a battle and ultimately the loss of a kingdom – “all for the want of a nail”. The pantry collapse is sort of like that – the first step in a long sequence of events. With the pending remodel, the garage where my layout is situated could become quite crowded. If the remodel is just the kitchen, crude temporary cooking facilities and boxes of dishes, pots, and pans will fill the space. If the remodel is even more extensive, some furniture will be stored there. In any case, not much layout building will get done for a while, at least not in the garage.

I’ve known in the back of my mind that this was a likely scenario, but I was able to keep it way back there. But the impetus for layout construction has certainly diminished since the pantry’s unfortunate breakdown with the knowledge of what was likely. So what to do?

While pondering this question, I thought about advice I’ve given to my own model railroad layout design clients when faced with some unexpected space upheaval. “There’s always some way to build something,” I cheerily encourage them. I hate it when my words come back to mock me. But maybe there is a way. After all, friend Bart Thurber found a way to use a storage room at his business for a no-muss/no-fuss representation of ATSF’s Alice Street Yard on shelves above the storage.

Our guest room doubles as an office and has a couple of long walls. Hmmm. Perhaps a narrower desk, since I’ve moved from a CRT to a flat-screen monitor. Maybe a few sections of layout built on shelves along the walls with a bridge across the window. That could work. But what to put on those shelves? HOn3 Hawaiian railroad … no, back, away, foul spirit!! OK, so let’s stay with the Oakland Harbor Belt theme, era, and N scale so I can use the on-hand locos and rolling stock. Maybe sections of the layout that might even be useable in the garage later. (Or in a dedicated train room if the remodel turns extensive – or is that expensive?).

OK then, what to build? Fernside Yard and Alaska Basin could probably fit, but not in configurations that readily transfer to the ultimate garage plan. So how about Brooklyn Basin? (Click here for a better view of the Brooklyn Basin map.)

This proto-freelanced area sports some interesting possibilities, with a huge flour milling complex, canning company warehouses, a massive glass plant and a marine terminal. In real life, the SP (and now UP) served the area, but I’ve always imagined modeling coopetition here with the OHB and SP jockeying for customers.

Let’s see… the Fruitvale Ave. lift bridge (above, from Microsoft Live Earth), glass plant (upper left in the photo), and canning warehouses (lower left) along one short wall, narrow bridge for Glascock Street across the window, then the major milling complex and marine terminal along the long wall. As Gene Wilder’s Froederick Frankenstein screams in the movie Young Frankenstein, “IT … COULD … WORK!!!”

Stay tuned.

John Armstrong's most lasting design legacy?

2008-04-06T19:20:00.000-07:00

The March 2008 issue of Model Railroader magazine included John Armstrong's Canandaigua Southern as part of the "Landmark Layouts" series. The inclusion of this layout seems natural since it incorporated many of the concepts that have become part of the repertoire of most of today's model railroad layout designers. Many of the ideas were quite unique at the time, as pointed out in the MR article by Andy Sperandeo.

Some of these, like the "vertical turnout", reverted staging loops, and "dehydrated canal lock" seem to be used only occasionally in designs today. Others, like the "loads in / empties out" scheme are even a bit over-used. But it's easy to forget just how innovative were the narrow shelves and double-sided backdrops John used with his walkaround designs. Today, tyro designers routinely include these as part of their layout plans, but even John's own designs didn't usually reflect these features until later in his career. Armstrong designs from the 1940s and 1950s include many layouts with the broad scenes, duckunders and control pits, and multiple loops of track typical of the era. Many of these early Armstrong designs lacked backdrops at all and it was rare that they were used to separate scenes from viewers in different aisles.

Through the kindness of friend Jim Providenza, I was included in a visit to Armstrong's layout while visiting the area for an operating event some years ago. John was a very gracious host, and I enjoyed seeing so many elements of the Canandaigua Southern I had read about over the years. But the most striking aspect of the design (for me) was the way the narrow shelves, double sided backdrop, and winding aisles combined to give a sense of a long distance traveled from one end of the layout to the other and the isolation of, and focus on, individual scenes. We often take these elements for granted in current designs, but they were not found in the typical model railroad layout designs of the '40s and '50s. (As Andy Sperandeo pointed out in the MR article, walkaround control was not very viable in the period, so that certainly put a damper on designs that couldn't be viewed and operated from one or a few control panels.)

I've now had the chance to be involved with the construction, operation, or redesign of a few Armstrong designs, and the refinement of his ideas through the years is very intriguing. I hope one day to have the time to undertake a more organized study of John Armstrong's designs to examine the changes in his style over time. Certainly, though, we can see the design of his own Canandaigua Southern (planned circa 1950) as an important turning point in John's design style, although he didn't immediately abandon the more traditional design concepts in other projects.

The narrow shelf/backdrop-scene-divider/walkaround concept is commonplace today, but it wasn't always so. John's use and popularization of the idea was a key to its adoption by other layout designers and it contributes to the realism of many, many layouts today.

Grandma Nellie and "Real" Time

2008-03-23T20:17:00.000-07:00

When we shifted to Daylight Saving Time this last weekend, my Mother reminded me of a family story about my paternal Grandma Nellie. When Daylight Saving Time rolled around each year, apparently Grandma Nellie insisted on keeping one clock in the house set to standard time, which she called "real" time. No matter how often friends and relatives pointed out that it was confusing to have one clock out-of-sync with the rest of the Eastern Time Zone, Grandma Nellie persisted. She had been born before Daylight Saving Time began, and apparently always felt vaguely uneasy about the annual "spring forward" ritual. Having one clock set to what she felt was "real" time was reassuring.

When I heard that family anecdote, it rang true for me when it comes to model railroad operating sessions. I've written about the 1:1 alternative to fast clocks and how much more comfortable it is for me than watching the hands of a fast clock whirl around at a dizzying pace.

No doubt part of the reason is my preference for yard jobs and local switching roles. These model railroad job duties don't scale down with the fast clock -- they take about as long on the model as on the prototype. And I like to think about the steps, working to replicate some of the procedures of a real-life crew. One of the most enjoyable operating sessions I ever had was on Rick Fortin's ATSF 4th District layout. I teamed with friend Alan Cooper on the Kingsley Turn, a job that works an isolated branch well off the busy mainline.

Once safely situated on the branch, Alan and I used small post-it tabs to simulate the brakemen on the ground as we switched the town of Kingsley and the adjacent Cal Port cement plant. As real crews do, we tried to plan our moves to minimize walking for the crews on the ground as opposed to just blasting all over the tracks spotting and picking-up cars. Sometimes the seemingly obvious move is not the way a real crew would do it when you consider how long it would take for a real crew member to walk from one place to another to "pull the pin" on a cut of cars.

Alan I and I worked away for a couple of real-time hours serving the various industries on the Kingsley Branch. Rick's layout uses 1:1 time, so we didn't feel overly rushed by the pressure of an artificial time clock. Instead, we enjoyed the satisfaction of working more like a real-life crew, attending to safety and the needs of the "men on the ground".

So yeah, I like a more reasonable pace and the chance to replicate prototype concerns. But given my Grandma Nellie's one clock in the house that stayed on "real" time, maybe some of it’s genetic!

I was saddened to read news on the web of Jeff Healey's passing earlier this month. He was an amazing guitarist and signer. Blinded at a very early age by a rare cancer, he learned to play guitar in a most unusual style, holding it across his lap and fingering it from "above" the neck (opposite the typical method). Most famous for his first major label album See the Light and his appearance in the movie Roadhouse, Healey was a powerful presence in concert. Like many musicians, he later explored a different genre than the one that made him (modestly) famous, playing trumpet and guitar in jazz bands. A new album of blues covers, Mess of Blues, was recorded before his death and is a strong reminder of his dynamic style. By all accounts he maintained a full life despite suffering the continuing effects of the cancer, an inspiration to those of us who accomplish less with far fewer obstacles.

Overlapping elements in layout design

2008-02-17T18:30:00.000-08:00

I posted this in one of the forums, and as is usually the case with conceptual ideas in that environment, it fell with a resounding thud. So since I know at least two people might read and appreciate it if I post it here (thanks, Mike and Trevor!), here goes.

Real railroads are relatively long and skinny, and that's even true for terminal and switching areas, for the most part. The width of right-of-way might only be 100 feet or so (just over a foot in HO). But the length, of course, is tens, hundreds, or thousands of miles. What this means is that most model railroads have significantly more width (or depth) than length compared to the real thing.

The original question in the forum was regarding layout design for a small switching layout. But this principle applies to model railroad layouts of all sizes and configurations. So often, folks miss the opportunity to get more into the available space by neglecting to overlap some elements in the same running length of layout. Instead, they plop down things one after another in a linear fashion. Now it's true that real railroads are more or less arranged this way, but we're always so starved for length on the model that it can help to look for tricks that help compress the length with some judicious overlapping of elements.

Now this does not necessarily meaning placing one "town" behind another on the same shelf, but to look for places where some elements in the same area can overlap, taking advantage of our relatively deep scenes (compared to the length). Here's a small shelf-style layout (about 2'X12' in HO plus the removable car float), but it illustrates the way the different functions (yard, switch lead, industries, runaround) overlap to some degree in the same linear space.

For a better view, click here

Note how each element overlaps some other element. The industry tracks (bright green) serve a series of flats, both against a backdrop and toward the aisle ("fascia flats"). Of course, when there is a little more depth, one can mix in larger 3-D industries as well. But there can still be overlap with yard tracks, switch leads, etc.

An improved version of this concept was published as a folding 1'X6' N scale design in Model Railroad Planning 2005. It's inspired by the erstwhile real-life Alameda Belt Line. Here's the version I submitted to MRP, their artwork was much nicer.

Read more about this design here

So look for chances to overlap where it doesn't compromise the operating potential or appearance of a scene. (And I don't mean the overlap above your belt … we all need to get rid of those …)

Track Plan Analysis Indexed

2008-02-06T09:40:00.000-08:00

I recently wrote a series of posts on the dozen-or-so steps I use in analyzing a track plan. A couple of readers mentioned to me that it can be hard to follow because of the inverse chronological nature of a blog and the way blogger manages archives, so here's an index to those posts.

Part 1 covered Seeing the Space, not a Table, Trackplan Schematics, and Staging

Part 2 talked about Reality-based Rendering, Train Capacity and Balance, and Leads, Runarounds, and Switchbacks

Part 3 described considerations for Yards

Part 4 included the Four Cornerstones of Layout Design and "PICS" for Model Railfanning

Part 5 finished up with Layout Vision, Story Telling, and Synchronicity

Death of Discourse

2008-01-27T16:38:00.000-08:00

For years, I was part of a thoughtful on-line forum. The conversation and some of the participants went way back, even before the Internet was available commercially … to bulletin boards on AOL and Compuserve when the latter offered only numerical email addresses. Then the discussion moved to a private email server and then to the series of commercial start-ups that were eventually swallowed whole by an Internet giant.

At first, it was a great place to talk about model railroad layout design and operations. There were many knowledgeable practitioners on the list. Some of these were authors in the commercial press, some were real-life railroaders, many were less-known but thoughtful and eloquent modelers. Most contributed meaningful ideas and respectful points to the discussion. The forum was not widely known, so it was a layout design and ops discussion on the Internet rather than just another Internet forum nominally about model railroading.

Over time that changed, partly owing to its growing popularity. It started to take on all the familiar unpleasant aspects of an Internet forum, equal parts boorishness and banality. The snipers came first … boosting their own petty egos by taking shots at better-known modelers and hobby institutions. They pontificated and postured and

chipped

chipped

… away at the more thoughtful posters, until many of these reasonable participants departed.

Next came the bullies and the blowhards. They raged and ridiculed, posting incessantly about trivial typos and perceived slights. The empty-headed self-proclaimed experts came next, churning out scores of wildly impractical suggestions that drowned out the thoughtful and experienced ideas by sheer number of posts -- never mind the fact that these savants had no actual experience with anything they were recommending. Finally the size of the audience attracted the peddlers and shills, hawking their products at every opportunity. Although there are still short-lived bursts of thoughtful discussion, sadly this forum sometimes seems only to be

BRAGGADOCIO

Bloviating

Bon Mots

... and the persistent

tap

tap

tap

… on the reader's shoulder by the peddlers with their wares.

When I worked at an Internet company, people talked about how the Internet was just like real life, but with the volume turned up to eleven and running at septuple-speed. If that's true, perhaps this once-thoughtful discussion has simply been undone by the egos and ill tempers that eventually destroy discourse in other arenas. Still, it's a shame.

One Lost Weekend Redeemed

2008-01-16T08:33:00.000-08:00

I wrote a while back about some of the "lost weekends" I have spent with different layout concepts, prototypes, scales, and gauges before returning to my Oakland Harbor Belt. Usually, there's not much to show for the effort except some increased knowledge, though that in itself is not a bad outcome.

One of the more feverish lost weekends was spent trying to coil a Hawaiian-themed HOn3 model railroad into my garage. This had been inspired by learning some history and seeing some remnants of Maui's Kahului Railroad while on a family vacation, followed hard on the heels by the publication of Jim Chiddix' and MacKinnon Simpson's Next Stop Honolulu! about the Oahu Railway and Land Company. (Great book, by the way.)

For the most part, this Island (Railroad) Fever passed quickly, although I have had a couple of brief relapses. But I wanted to do something with the background I had learned and the enthusiasm I felt about these Hawaiian prototypes. So I proposed an article to Model Railroad Planning magazine about the Oahu Railway. It's been a couple of years in the making, but that effort has finally borne fruit in MRP 2008.

As usual, the Kalmbach editors and artists did a great job with my material. I chose the roughly 12-foot-square "MRP bedroom" and employed non-connected staging- and ops-linked decks to get the most out of that space in HOn3.

Based on early feedback, some readers are still having trouble grasping the idea of decks that are not physically connected, but are related to one another through the movements of trains on each deck. The concept doesn't work for everyone, but I find it's often a neat way to employ multiple decks without losing valuable layout space and running time to a helix or 'round-the-room ramp. I wrote in detail about the idea in Layout Design Journal #28 (Spring 2003), published by the Layout Design SIG.

All in all, I'm pleased with the MRP article and especially happy that one of my formerly "lost weekends" has found some expression.

Marketing Math

2008-01-11T13:56:00.000-08:00

What kind of a bizarre parallel universe is it where 7 is greater than 117? 23 greater than 1500? 7 months longer than 10 years? Wherever that strange universe may be, it's apparently where model railroad product managers dwell. How else to explain the recent decisions by Athearn and Atlas to develop new HO scale models of the GP‑40X and RS‑36 respectively, but not to offer the Alco S‑2/4 in N scale?

For those trying to keep score at home, here's how it breaks down. A mere seven railroads purchased RS‑36s new, compared with 117 who bought S‑2s. And with the resale market, there might be another 100 or more prototypes that rostered S‑2s at some time.

The GP‑40X sold even more poorly in the real world -- a mere 23 units vs. over 1500 S‑2s. And the GP‑40X's ephemeral production span of seven months does not compare favorably with the S‑2's ten-year production run. (Throw in the similar S‑4 and that expands to 21 years -- about 36 times longer than the GP-40X!)

So how can tooling-up and producing these new HO models of pretty rare prototypes be seen as a better business decision than releasing a quality S‑2 in N scale*? HO chauvinists will point to the smaller market for N scale. OK, maybe … but here's where the math gets interesting. If a recent survey by a model railroading market participant is correct, there are about 2.79 times more HO scale buyers than N scale buyers. Let's give HO'ers the benefit of the doubt and round up to three.

OK, now let's apply this to the numbers above. If there were 1500 real-life S‑2s produced versus 23 GP‑40Xs (and we apply the 3X HO vs. N ratio), the market for N scale S-2s is a whopping 2000%+ larger. But maybe numbers produced isn't the best measure. OK, let's take number of road names for the marginally more successful of the two prototypes, the RS‑36. If 117 prototype railroads bought S‑2s new and just 7 bought RS‑36s (and remembering to apply the 3-to-1 HO market size advantage), the N scale S‑2 market size is still more than 500% greater than is the HO scale RS‑36 market size. That's even before considering the many hand-me-down owners of S‑2s over the years.

Yes, I understand that bringing out a new model requires more than just the tooling for a new body shell: the availability of an appropriate drive train and chassis is also a factor. And the S‑2 is a physically small model in N scale (though not smaller than Kato's recent successful N scale NW‑2), increasing the design challenge.

Estimating market sizes is difficult. I often make market estimates for my technology marketing consulting clients and there are always uncertainties. But a 500% to 2000% larger market potential seems like a pretty straightforward decision to me. Why do model railroad manufacturers stubbornly leave this money on the table? You'll have to ask them -- and I hope that you do.

*No, I haven’t forgotten about the old Arnold S‑2 (although I'd like to). But these are of very old design, suffer from cracked gears, and most samples run like rusty meat-grinders. No offense to the meat-grinders. I have one of these in custom SP paint that has had hours of custom care and rebuilding by an expert. It still runs like a train-set Tyco. And even that's a huge improvement over the out-of-the-box performance.

Purple Mountain Majesties

2008-01-08T08:29:00.000-08:00

When poet Katharine Lee Bates penned these descriptive words after a rugged trip to the summit of Pikes Peak in 1893*, I'm pretty sure that she was not thinking about model railroading. But this phrase from the anthem America the Beautiful came to my mind recently while reading Bruce Petty's interesting article about backdrop painting in the January '08 issue of Model Railroader.

Bruce was inspired by the idealized illustrative style of fruit crate label art. Bruce (and the crate label artists) noticed that distant hills take on a blue or purple tinge (which happens due to the differential scattering of light through the atmosphere). I've always enjoyed fruit crate art and have a number of examples hanging in my home. The art is highly stylized and very effective in evoking a mood of a time and place for me.

Bruce's backdrops work especially well for me, then, at least partly because they tap in to my own feelings and visualizations of southern California. It helps that he has a talent for rendering these backgrounds with "just enough" detail and takes the additional step of blending the shelf scenery colors with the lowest edge of the backdrop. But fundamentally, one of the reasons I respond so positively to these scenes is my own experience from living in the area and the memories and feelings inspired by the fruit label art.

Bruce also shows how a minimal palette can be shaded and mixed to create very effective distant mountains and valleys. The interplay of light and shadow give a real feeling of depth, but without overpowering the relatively simple modeling in the foreground. Bruce's narrow shelf layout is greatly expanded through his very fitting backdrop painting.

The article has me wondering if other shared memories and experiences might be the basis for experiments in backdrop art. For World War II era layouts, would backdrop painting techniques that subtly echo those used in WWII home front posters help to set the mood? For pre-war years, would Edward Hopper's impressionistic style help create a feeling of time and place?

[John Armstrong's Canandaigua Southern layout included a model scene that replicated the moody impressionistic café in Edward Hopper's Nighthawks (c. 1942). In turn, the Layout Design SIG and others in 1995 commissioned railroad artist Ted Rose to create a painting commemorating John that included the scene (MR, August 1996). Art imitating modeling imitating art imitating life?]

Obviously, it would be easy to go too far and create a backdrop that is too detailed (or too poorly-rendered) so that it becomes a distraction to the modeled scene. But Bruce's article shows us that backdrops can be more than attempts at pure realism -- they can help create an atmosphere that enhances the modeled layout.

* Some sources indicate that Ms. Bates was in fact inspired by her railroad trip from the east coast to Colorado Springs to accept a teaching position (e.g., the "Alabaster City" of Chicago's 1893 World's Columbian Exposition, the wheat fields of Kansas, etc.). And although she had to travel in horse-drawn wagon and atop a mule to get to the top of Pikes Peak for her view of the "fruited plain", today a cog wheel railway climbs to the top. Even America the Beautiful is train-related if you look hard enough!

Although it sounds at first like mixing oil and water, Raising Sand by Robert Plant (yeah, the Zep' dude) and Alison Krauss is in fact a great listen. Producer/guitarist T Bone Burnett (of Brother, Where art Thou, among many others) creates an eclectic mix that sounds at various times like a 1920s speakeasy, a 1950s sock hop, and a soundscape from a troubled dream. Plant's celebrated vocal quirks rarely go over-the-top and Krauss provides a steadying melodic foundation with both her voice and fiddle playing. This release doesn't fit in any genre pigeonholes, but I think a wide variety of listeners would enjoy it.

Make those backups today

2007-12-28T09:00:00.000-08:00

For your New Year's Resolution, set up the equipment and procedures to back up your computer often. I usually run a backup every couple of days (daily if I've done a lot of work that day). I've just weathered a failure that left me without a computer for a few days. And of course, my backup was three days behind when the PC failed, so I'm redoing that work now -- and wishing I had backed up my data every day. As I will from now on.

Experience is often the best teacher, but usually the tuition is high.

Innies and Outties …

2007-12-07T08:46:00.000-08:00

… or, "Six Blind Men from Hindostan"

It's amazing to me how a handful of "prophets of doom" can keep the pernicious "The Hobby is Dying" forum threads going, week after tedious week. Mostly I ignore them. Instead, I focus on my own modeling, which benefits from the greatest availability of products in the hobby ever, or on my clients' designs, which are often quite substantial undertakings that will demand the purchase of a boat-load of track components, rolling stock, electronics, etc., etc.

How can there be such different opinions of the state of the hobby? Some of it is certainly grumpy old men, reluctant to acknowledge the changing face of the hobby. Some of it may be naively optimistic current practitioners. It could be said that there are two kinds of people in the world: those who divide the world into two kinds of people and those who don't over-simplify. But at the risk of overly broad generalizations, there seem to be two major forces in this debate: let's call them the Innies and the Outties.

Many of the Innies (and they seem to be a smaller group) share some of the same characteristics. They often pride themselves on being historians of the hobby, keepers of the eternal Ellison/Allen/Westcott flame. They know the model number and manufacturing history of all the Varney, Tyco and Athearn engines, which runs of Zamac bodies corroded, etc. Because of their long standing in the hobby, they've spent much of their time focused on getting stuff to work, finding parts, and scratchbuilding. It was the only way back then. They may have only a small layout, because it was difficult to find the time to build all the pieces needed for a larger layout before ready-to-run. They may have spent a lot of time crafting the perfect freelanced railroad name. In many ways, they've spent much of their time on solitary endeavors. In fact, the very characteristics of the hobby in the past may have generally attracted detail-oriented, independent, self-contained personalities. These folks are seeing the hobby from the "inside" -- and they are sure it is fading fast.

Then there are the Outties. Many of them came to the hobby, or returned to it, much later in its history. Due to the boom in ready-to-run (enabled by manufacturers using CAD for model making, et al), the basics of a layout are much more easily available than in the past. Many of these folks are focused on building complete layouts to share with others through articles, layout tours, and operating sessions. They are also focused outwardly on real railroads, because there is so much more information available than in the past. They may actively participate in on-line forums and go to train shows (much bigger now than in the past), and actively use the Internet to shop more globally than at the local hobby shop. Some current characteristics of the hobby serve to attract those with more gregarious, people-oriented personalities. These Outties seem to think the hobby is in pretty good shape.

Perhaps these divergent views are largely a matter of personality and perspective. The scratchbuild-everything-run-only-steam-take-only-film-photos segment of the hobby is in decline. Perhaps because the scratchbuilding skills aren't necessary any longer to attain an operating layout. The segment of the hobby that's primarily interested in detailed modeling may well have become smaller -- but it's not gone. Witness Max Magliaro's amazing N scale kitbash in the November 2007 - January 2008 issues of Railroad Model Craftsman -- or any Railroad Prototype Modelers meet around the country.

On the other hand, because it's much easier to build a layout that runs well today than in the '50s, more people are entering the hobby with the primary goal of building full layouts. Many of the layouts being built today, large or small, are far more complete than many of those of the '50s or '60s. And guess what? Their owners spent a lot more on those completed layouts, by any measure, than did the majority of modelers in 1956 … or 1966 … or anytime in the past. And although I hate to be a grubby materialistic weasel, from a commercial standpoint, spending keeps a hobby alive, not craftsmanship.

On this point, a "World's Greatest Hobby" webpage estimated the US model railroading hobby population at 500,000 and their annual spending at $500 million. This suggests that, on average, we spend a thousand bucks per year on the hobby. So it may well be that there are fewer model railroaders than in some "golden era" in the past. But we may each be spending more, even adjusted for inflation. From a marketing theory standpoint, even if there are fewer buyers, if each invests more, the market can maintain itself or grow nicely. In any case, the constantly expanding roster of available models suggests a market in expansion, not decline. Or at least, that's the end result for each of us as individuals working to build a layout.

So who's right, the Innies or the Outties? The answer won't be known for decades -- and most of us won't care a bit by then! Personally, I think the best approach is to fully engage in and enjoy the abundance the hobby currently offers us. More models, more roadnames, more information, more capability than ever. Much of it made possible by the pioneers, to be sure, but we can't be so averse to change that we reject and disparage the opportunities of today. In any case, it seems to me that the endless hand-wringing and despair over the hobby doesn't serve to attract any newcomers. And it should be in everyone's interest, grousing Innie or glowing Outtie, to bring new folks to the hobby.

John Godfrey Saxe's poem from the 1800s, "The Blind Men and the Elephant" is a familiar story to most of us. In it, six blind men encounter an elephant, but since each finds a different piece of the beast and cannot see the overall animal, each has a different -- and incorrect -- view of what an elephant must be. Perhaps it’s the same when it comes to the state of the model railroading hobby. In fact, J. G. Saxe's closing stanzas may say it best:

And so these men of Hindostan,
Disputed loud and long,
Each with his own opinion
Exceeding stiff and strong,
Though each was partly in the right,
And each was partly wrong

So, oft in theologic wars
The disputants, I ween,
Rail on in utter ignorance
Of what each other mean;
And prate about an Elephant
Not one of them has seen!

What's in a Name?

2007-11-25T21:12:00.000-08:00

With apologies to the Bard of Avon (whoever he or she may have been), one of the recurring questions on forums and in casual model railroad conversations is what to call a freelanced model railroad. Although I personally find them trite and unconvincing, there still seems to be quite a following for the cutesy-poo names such as "Bumpkin and Booville Lines". Another group goes for dynamic sounding names like "Sidewinder Railway". And yet another subset chooses a name to yield a clever (or naughty) acronym (toilet humor seems, unfortunately, to be particularly favored here).

But most real railroads' existence depended on investors and customers viewing them as reliable transportation organizations. Although real railroad names were sometimes ambitious, even aspirational, they tended to communicate a business-like sense of purpose. Even if they never reached the end points their names suggested (e.g., "Kansas City, Mexico, and Orient"), these names provided a promise to which investors and the general public could relate.

I talked about synchronicity in my last post about model railroad layout analysis in terms of the track design and operations. And naming can certainly play a role as well for freelanced designs. A realistic name communicates purpose and can help anchor the layout in a place and time. But what makes a name realistic?

Bob Warren undertook a survey of 100 real-life railroad names from the classic era in the Layout Design News LDN-13, April 1995, published by the Layout Design SIG. Bob found that the majority (nearly 70%) had a geographical term in the name (Pacific, Atlantic, Central, Western, Eastern, etc.). 56% had a city name in the title, 29% a state name (of course, there were many combinations like New York Central).

More modern times have seen names that lean toward the anonymous acronym ("CSX", anyone?), yet even these tend to have geographical meanings and roots, even if only from the names of the merged fallen flags.

So when comparing freelanced names, "Utah Colorado Western" (Lee Nicholas' fine layout) just seems more compelling to me than "Higgleytown and Busterville". One feels like a real business to me, the other like something from a storybook. On the other hand, a freelanced layout depicting a struggling backwoods logger might well have a more modest name, suggesting its lesser aspirations. Maybe not something silly, but more "Sierra Lumber", as opposed to "California, Oregon, and Idaho".

When chosen carefully (mindful of the generalities of real-life names), a freelanced railroad name can communicate much about the imagineered prototype and its locale, era, and purpose. To me, that gives a freelanced line a head start in the viewer's mind and allows the track plan, scenery, and modeled industries to be viewed in context. Choosing the name of a freelanced railroad is fun, but it's also an easy place to go wrong.

Most of time I mention music in the blog, it's commenting about an entire album that I really enjoy, not just a song or two. Under the Covers, Volume 1, by Matthew Sweet and Susanna Hoffs (everyone's favorite Bangle) is not a breakthrough concept -- it's a collection of mostly-familiar late '60s covers. I actually bought the CD for my wife and didn't expect to be too excited about it. But the interpretation and execution of a few of the songs is just terrific. Their cover of Lionel-fan Neil Young's "Cinnamon Girl" is one of the coolest pieces of power-pop you'll ever hear. (Sweet's standout guitar work on this number is hardly an imitation of Young, much more of a retro revival.) A number of the other songs on the album just aren't my cup of tea, but the presence of a few standouts was a really pleasant surprise.

Track Plan Analysis, Part 5

2007-11-11T20:55:00.000-08:00

I'll close this series on model railroad track plan analysis with some thoughts on three topics that are much harder to define objectively. If a plan has made it this far, there are few (or only easily correctable) mechanical flaws and we're ready to get down to very serious subjective analysis.

10) Layout Vision

As I noted earlier, this is usually where I start when I ask prospective clients about their layout ideas, yet it comes late in the process here. Vision in a model railroad context is a little difficult to define. Some brief vision descriptions from layouts and plans I know well might include: "mainline Santa Fe in the Texas Panhandle", "a sampler of classic western railroad scenes", "shortline railroading in the Olympic Peninsula", "the Santa Fe in California in 1973", "terminal rail-marine operations in the '50s", "upstate New York in the depression", "making connections with convoys in WWII", "plausible setting for eclectic model collection", and many more.

Vision can include an idea of era, locale, economic health, and viewer and operator perspectives or job roles. Is the passage of flashy streamliners what you picture from looking at the track plan? Or decrepit backwoods make-do logging gear struggling up stiff grades? Far too many plans include a pinch of this and a soupçon of that, blending (blanding?) together into generalities without personality. Vision is challenging to define and even more challenging to reflect in a track plan -- but when it works, the effect on realism and engagement is amazing.

Extracting this vision from only a track plan is a matter of looking at track configurations, industries, likely scenery elements, etc. Long sinuous passing sidings and wyes for turning helpers suggest a mountain-climbing railroad. Tightly packed and complex trackwork reflects the expensive urban waterfront property on which it is built. Long tangents and "prairie skyscrapers" help set the scene for a granger line.

And within these broader schemes and definitions, there will be emphasis on certain elements. For example, a 4-track Pennsy mainline may serve primarily as establishing scenery for gritty parallel industrial trackage where lowly shifters dodge real or simulated mainline Clockers. The vision here is of the local work, not the glamorous varnish, yet the infrastructure of the well maintained mainlines helps accentuate and define the layout's industrial-switching focus by contrast.

The old model railroad track plan books often concluded the description of a particular layout with a line like " … or replace the grain elevator with a mine and sprinkle on some pines and your granger railroad can be a mining line in the old west!" Ummm … no. If you look at a plan and it would be easy to change its place, time and purpose merely by applying products from Woodland Scenics, that plan may not be reflecting a unique vision very well.

11) Story Telling

This flows naturally from Layout Vision and some may not find it especially useful to make a distinction. But to me, story telling comes from small vignettes, trackwork elements, or operating practices that help communicate the vision. A derelict interlocking tower and pulled-up crossing tracks communicate something specific about place, time, and purpose. A covered turntable or long train sheds with a siding for a fire train speak volumes about fighting grades (and the occasional wayward spark) in the high country. Milk platforms. LCL freight houses. Flood loaders. These kinds of layout elements express another bit of information about the layout vision.

Story telling, of course, is easier in terms of operation, by assigning job roles or even attitudes as does Jim Senese on his Kansas City Terminal Railroad. But I think well-designed vignettes and track configurations can also play a vital role. Layouts that tell stories well just "feel right", drawing the viewer and operator into the vision of the owner and/or designer.

12) Synchronicity

Simply stated, do all the layout elements coordinate and support the vision of the layout and the goals of the owner? For example, if the vision is recreating Timetable and Train Order operations, are there sufficient staging tracks, adequately and well-placed passing sidings, space set aside for dispatchers and operators, and enough mainline length to allow for orders to be written and take effect?

Twenty staging tracks at each end of the layout won't create a steady parade of traffic if there are only one or two places to meet and pass in between. Cramped aisles and impossibly long reaches to uncouple cars don't support a vision of two man crews simulating real-life railroad switching practices. If the vision is for a bucolic backwoods logger, how does that double-track mainline fit in?

In this final step, individual elements that may be perfectly fine on their own are considered together to see if they mesh into a coherent whole, and if that whole, in turn, is in sync with the layout vision and purpose. A lack of synchronicity is one reason I caution folks against blindly stringing unrelated prototype design elements together as a model railroad design strategy. Yes, it's hard to argue with the fact that you collected your station scene, yard, and industry trackage from real railroads. But if it’s a Northeast Corridor multi-platform station, a coal marshalling yard, and a paper mill, it's no better than cobbling together a motor from a Mustang, a tranny from a Cadillac, and a differential from a Jeep and calling it a well-designed car.

Insuring complementary elements in the overall layout is much easier during the design process -- obviously, it’s hard to analyze more synchronicity into the plan after the fact. But if I'm analyzing a plan that otherwise seems acceptable in all the forgoing characteristics, in this final consideration I don't want to leave out the vital step of making sure all the great parts form an even better synergistic whole.

===

Whew! That’s a heaping helping o' verbosity, to be sure. It was interesting (and a little surprising) for me to break down my layout plan analysis into these multiple interrelated steps in order to write them all down. I hope it was also interesting for you all to read them.

Index to all five trackplan analysis posts

Track Plan Analysis, Part 4

2007-10-28T16:41:00.000-07:00

We continue to move from the more mechanical to the more conceptual. If a track plan I'm analyzing has made it over all the forgoing hurdles, we're ready to see how it will function in fulfilling the builder's interests and goals. Today I am writing about two different four-element considerations, one most applicable to layouts designed for operation and the other more appropriate for a model railfanning, "fun running", or display layout.

8) The Four Cornerstones

I've written about the four cornerstones briefly in the past (I should get back to that web page and flesh things out a little), so I'll not belabor these points. I settled on these cornerstones by taking a look at a handful of layouts I really admired from magazine coverage or viewing in person. What made these model railroad layouts seem more realistic? Why were these more engaging to operate? The four main elements that kept recurring were Prototype Inspiration, Staging, Major Industries, and Interchange.

Prototype Inspiration

Lest someone get the wrong idea, I don't mean that every layout must attempt to replicate a particular real-life railroad. Quite the contrary, I view the question of prototype and freelance as a continuum, not a dichotomy. But virtually every compelling model railroad I've seen includes a heavy dose of prototype inspiration.

Most layout viewers and operators have some exposure to real-life railroads. I believe this background comes into play (perhaps unconsciously) whenever we view a model scene. Our understanding of the prototype provides a subtle yardstick that helps us analyze and judge a model railroad.

Many of the elements I've already discussed are part of this analysis (excessive switchbacks, too-short leads, funky yard configurations, etc., etc.). But there's also a basic underlying question: what's the purpose of this railroad? How does it earn its keep … is there a plausible reason for it to exist? Is there some sense of a flow of traffic from one point to another? Emulating real-life railroads, to some degree, offers a shortcut to this realism.

Staging

I've already written about staging in this series of articles (Point 3 in this post). I won't go through all that again except to say that my personal sense of realism usually goes up if there's a suggestion that what's happening in the visible modeled layout scene is interconnected somehow to a larger unmodeled world "beyond the layout room". Every layout concept does not require staging, but nearly all benefit from it.

Major Industries

Ah, the good old days of model railroading, when you could spot two boxcars beside a tiny structure (that would only contain about half the contents of one of those cars) and call it good. In real life, railroading is a large-scale business for the most part. Most real-life rail-served industries, even going back to the 1930s and earlier, dwarfed the railroad and the railcars. If these industries weren't physically big enough to build, warehouse, and ship in large quantities, they wouldn’t need a boxcar. Yes, there are exceptions. But the presence of a few large industries really helps justify the existence of a railroad and improves realism, in my view. If the plan I am analyzing has nothing but short two-car spurs serving generic industries, I feel it's a lost opportunity to anchor the layout in place and time.

Another aspect of this is the presence of signature industries. Yes, one could have a pickle factory in Southern California, but a citrus packing house would be more representative for much of the area. Ditto a large coal mine in western Pennsylvania. I remember when I first started looking at model railroad magazines in the early 1970s, I was amazed that so many towns on so many different layouts had a feed and grain outlet with the familiar Purina checkerboard. There didn't seem to be any of these around where I lived, but they must be pretty common, right? Somewhat later, I realized with a little chagrin that the industries found on many layouts of the time had much more to do with the contents of the Suydam catalog than with emulating real life.

Interchange

Along with staging, interchange with another railroad helps suggest the idea of a connection to a larger, unmodeled world. While I think connecting with a real-life railroad helps communicate the place and time, even for a freelanced model railroad layout, interchange with another fictitious road can also help. In fact, an appropriate interchange track might be the single cheapest and easiest way to add some realism and interest to a layout (OK, maybe after a Team Track). Since it's usually easy to add the suggestion of interchange in some way, the lack of an interchange track doesn't usually disqualify a layout I'm analyzing -- but I will agitate for its addition.

Now the four cornerstones are all well and good, but they are a little focused on model railroad layouts built for operation. After designing a few layouts that were intended more for model railfanning and display, I realized that there is another set of design elements that are important for consideration in layout plan analysis.

9) My PICS for better viewing

The PICS elements are named for their acronym. They consist of Plausible Scenes, Independent Vignettes (or views), Contours (of scenery) and Staging (again?!). While railfanning/display layouts can also benefit from the four Cornerstones above, the PICS elements are critical for more believable and compelling scenes.

Plausible Scenes

In a way, this is the railfanning layout version of prototype inspiration. Realistic scenes include few, if any, highly unusual or unlikely elements. Realistic scenes may include signature industries, scenery, plants, etc., but don't usually mix discordant features of many different places and times. Man-made structures are in keeping with the period, locale, and use (no grass huts in the Berkshires). As an example, spindly trestles that couldn’t hold the weight of the construction crew, let alone a locomotive, don't make the scene more realistic and engaging. Yes, this is somewhat more pertinent to construction than design, but a car float designed into a desert-themed layout is going to result, as Ricky Ricardo put it, in "Some 'splaining to do".

Independent Vignettes

Some layouts intended for model railfanning include multiple loops of track and multiple passes through some scenes. After all, the trains are the thing, to a great degree. But I think it's almost always possible to also include at least one vignette, viewing position, or isolated scene that provides a realistic, once-through view of the train. This one scene provides the viewer with an uncluttered, distraction-free opportunity to appreciate the scenery and the consists rolling by. Not many trackplans intended for model railfanning and/or display offer this kind of realistic scene, but many more could. It's definitely something I look for now in analyzing this type of layout plan.

Scenery Contours

Oh, the tortured topography conjured up by model railroad designers. Mile after scale mile of sheer rock faces or retaining walls. Improbably steep hillsides that still somehow support dense vegetation. Rivers with no outlet and lakes with no source. And snaking through it all, unrealistic contours for track and roadbed.

Weaning layout designers from their addiction to verticality is not an easy task … and it's not a new problem. Designs with more tiers than a socialite's wedding cake date back to the beginnings of the hobby. More realistic scenery contours require more space between tracks, or alternately hiding and revealing tracks to let different tiers take the forefront in different areas. Very often, this means fewer loops and less track for a given space, but I think this can result in more satisfying model railfanning/display layouts for both in-person visitors and photography.

And yes, Staging

It may just be me, but I grow weary watching the same crack consist orbit endlessly though even a well-designed scene. Adding staging to a model railfanning/display layout assures some variation in consists and minimizes the number of times cars and locos must be stored and re-railed. Staging can also subtly suggest that the parade of models relates to a broader world beyond the modeled scenes, adding realism. Most designers of this type of layout don't think much about staging, but it's definitely something I'm considering in analyzing their designs.

===

Another avalanche of words trying to describe considerations and judgments that are much more visual and visceral than verbal for me. But hopefully it’s useful and slightly entertaining. I'll wrap up the topic next time with some thoughts on vision (finally!), story-telling, and synchronicity.

Index to all five trackplan analysis posts

===

A number of my relatives and friends in Southern California have been affected by the wildfires, including some who have still not been able to return to their homes. Along with thoughts, prayers, and donations to the Red Cross and others, now would be a good time for each of us to consider our own family plans for dealing with a natural disaster.

I first heard the band the The Beat Farmers during another period of fires in the late '80s in Southern California. I listened again this week to Pursuit of Happiness. (This CD is apparently currently out of print.) A quintessential rocking blues bar band, they disbanded with the death of a founding member in 1995. Great, if beery, live shows and a handful of strong songs are the legacy of a terrific, mostly unheralded group from San Diego.

Track Plan Analysis, Part 3

2007-10-22T07:19:00.000-07:00

For this installment, we'll assume that the model railroad track plan we are analyzing has made it over all the forgoing hurdles. With a lot of the mechanics covered, I start looking at how well the plan will work for its intended purposes.

7) Yard work never ends -- and that's a good thing

First and foremost, not every layout needs a traditional yard. Yards happen to be one of my favorite operational elements, so they're usually a high priority for me personally. But I've seen and designed some neat layouts without a textbook multi-track yard. A siding can serve the same purpose, allowing the crew to sort cars as needed for deliveries. For some small shortlines, a couple of interchange tracks with another railroad are the only yard available. And for a relatively small number of cars, destinations, and daily trains, that can work very well.

But most model railroaders want more action on their layouts than would be typical on prototype railroads. And yards are just plain neat, so most layouts include one or more. In analyzing these yard configurations, I start with a basic question. As I explained in my article in the recent Model Railroader magazine special issue, How to Build Realistic Layouts: Freight Yards, choosing the type of yard to model can make a big difference.

As seen in the image above, there are a wide variety of yard types found on the prototype, yet model railroader often are focused on "Division Point" yards. But real division points are often huge and another yard type might provide all for the same train make-up and break-down tasks that modelers desire. [I wrote a bit about the sometimes deadly urge for division point yards as one of my Eight Tricky Traps of Layout Design a few months ago.]

So I try to understand what type of yard has been intended in the layout under the analysis microscope. From that determination, I have an idea of what elements should be included and if the scope and scale of the yard is appropriate to its role on the layout.

A few basic things I look at are number, length, and the connections of yard tracks. A plethora of three-car-long body tracks may prove to be less useful than fewer, longer tracks, for example. While single-ended tracks are more space efficient for a yard, at least a few through tracks are also helpful. If a few of the classification tracks can connect directly to the main, this will be very helpful in actual operation. I also give a close look to any S-curves created in negotiating the yard ladder. And of course, my earlier check on rendering reality has already told me if the ladders are drawn too steeply or the ladder turnouts too close to one another.

Much of this analysis is naturally related to the type of yard being modeled and thus its purpose and role in the overall layout. Some elements that would be fatal in a through division point yard are completely benign in a branchline terminal, for example.

Next I will consider the mechanics of the overall yard design. Friend Craig Bisgeier's "Ten Commandments of Yard Design" is a very helpful introduction to these ideas. This useful checklist takes some unnecessary flack, in my humble opinion. Yes, it's true that not every prototype yard has a dedicated yard lead, for example. But these tended to be small yards with much lower train density than most modelers want to run. In typical model environments, a yard lead is usually a big help to keeping things flowing smoothly. All in all, I believe that most neophyte model railroad layout designers would have much better results by following Craig's advice than by ignoring it. [Maybe if Craig had called them "Tips" instead of Commandments, self-proclaimed experts wouldn’t feel so compelled to nit-pick ... but I digress.]

In particular, I'm looking for the steps that are necessary for a train to arrive, swap blocks of cars, terminate, or originate (depending on the role of the yard). How many steps are required? How many different backing moves? How often will the flow of through traffic be blocked during the process? This simple process of walking through these operations often flunks a yard that might otherwise appear to be well-designed at first glance. Sometimes the fix is simply adding or moving a crossover. Other times, it's a much more invasive procedure -- and the patient does not always survive. Many newbie model railroad layout designers lack any experience with actually operating yards, of course, so they're not able to walk through these steps, to the detriment of their designs.

My next yard test is related, and that is to try to get a sense of capacities and flows through the yard. Will the yard operators be able to keep up (if dedicated) and/or can the through train crews do their work efficiently? If not, the yard is going to be a chokepoint for operations. In both the Model Railroader special issue I referenced earlier and here on-line, I've highlighted a number of tips that can help keep yards flowing smoothly. Some are design related, some operations-related. But when I analyze a track plan, I'm trying to understand the impact of the yard configuration on the generation and flow of traffic and if there are any subtle roadblocks to efficient operation.

My final yard check is the basic appearance and "railroadiness" of the yard configuration. Compound yard ladders are very space efficient, for example, but tend to be rare on the prototype where crewmembers would need to cross tracks repeatedly to throw switches. Sometimes these complex yard ladders are the only way to make a yard fit, but I think it can detract from the overall appearance. This is pretty subjective, but I think most people have seen enough photos of real-life yards to have a sense of this.

===

Whew! That was a lot on yards and I'm afraid I've only scratched the surface. Again, this took much longer to write about than to actually analyze a plan. We'll talk about Cornerstones and PICS next time.

Index to all five trackplan analysis posts

I love slide guitar in all its forms: bottleneck, pedal steel, lap steel, dobro, etc. I'm slightly embarrassed to admit that it took me the longest time as a kid to figure out how players were making those sounds come out of a guitar (in my defense, it was pre-MTV). I was listening again this weekend to a fabulous collaboration album, The Word. Blues artists the North Mississippi All Stars teamed with absolute newcomer (at the time) Robert Randolph on pedal steel and producer / jazz keyboardist John Medeski (of Medeski, Martin, and Wood) for this powerful album of gospel tunes inspired by the "sacred steel" guitar tradition of some black churches. The playing is exuberant and exhilarating. Since this album, Randolph has become established as a commercial artist, releasing some other music I enjoy. But in my opinion, none matches the pure joy of The Word.

Track Plan Analysis, Part 2

2007-10-14T17:32:00.000-07:00

Continuing our track plan analysis discussion, one person asked me why I didn't focus earlier on layout vision and concept. After all, it's the first thing I ask about in the questionnaire I suggest for new clients. And when designing a model railroad track plan, it is the most important issue in my mind, by far.

But in analyzing an existing plan, I don't usually get there until a little later in the process. Bear in mind that it took me a lot longer to write about the first three steps (see earlier post below) than it does to go through them on a particular plan. A lot of this is intuitive for me at this point and I tend to jump around between these steps, not follow them rigorously. OK, back to our discussion.

4) Reality-based rendering

Whether hand-drawn or computer generated, a number of overly-optimistic errors can creep in. Track-to-track spacing, S-curves, impossible grades, unworkably tight turnout angles, and curves not meeting tangents at right angles can all be problems. Tracks too close to the benchwork edge or a wall also crop up quite often. I'm not looking for one small error; this is often systemic with a particular plan.

One thing that I see quite often lately is errors in plans drawn with general CAD programs. Sometimes the turnout angles are correct, but they've been drawn impractically close to the next turnout. In real life, it requires space for the points, so turnouts can't be lined up like sardines in a can.

The commercial press often uses general drawing tools to render the beautiful track plans seen in the magazines. These track plans sometimes contain many of these errors, since they are developed from author inputs of varying precision.

5) Train capacity, flow, and balance

Here I am looking at the overall scheme. In anything but the smaller plans, I'm trying to understand if there are sufficient passing tracks in the best locations to allow the desired traffic to flow. In double-track designs, the location and orientation of crossovers is the key factor. I'm trying to get an idea of what the typical and maximum train length can be, how many trains in motion at once, etc.

Friend and fellow former Layout Design Journal editor Joe Fugate has adapted formulae originally published by Dr. Roy Dohn (Model Railroader, June 1968) for this purpose. [Joe published these in LDJ#21, Fall 1998 and on-line here.] I find this mechanistic approach does not work well for me personally, but it is a way some have found useful to look at capacities and flow.

I prefer to look more qualitatively, considering the typical train length (what has been called a "lineal" by some). Where does a train of typical length fit, where may two trains meet or pass, how far apart are these locations, etc. Again, it took a lot longer to write these paragraphs than I spend on this element when considering a typical plan. But it scuttles more than a few plans whose meet/pass points are too few, too short, or too clustered.

For plans with staging, I am also considering at this step whether the number and length of the staging tracks is in balance with the passing sidings or meet/pass areas between crossovers. A ton of staging may not do much good if only two trains can be operated across the layout at once because of a lack of meet/pass points. Staging tracks much shorter than the typical meet/pass points are also an out-of-balance signal.

6) Leads, runarounds, and switchbacks (Oh, my!)

Yep, another pet peeve. The persistent overuse of switchbacks by model railroad layout designers sometimes makes a plan look busy but operate poorly. A recent published design requires five back-and-forth moves to serve one industry.

More generally, I am looking to see if runaround and lead lengths are consistent with industry track length, rolling stock and motive power length, and if many switching moves require blocking a busy mainline or moving a lot of previously placed cars at unrelated industries.

A surprising number of newbie plans contain no runaround or an unfeasibly short runaround. Or they have an 18" switchback switch lead to serve a 48" long track hosting three large industries.

This is one of the areas where I must fault the commercial press. They publish designs with these failings over and over again … it provides a very bad example for aspiring designers.

===

Whew! A lot of words so far for steps I usually do pretty quickly. But perhaps it will suggest areas to consider when analyzing plans on your own. Next installment: yards, Cornerstones, and PICS.

Index to all five trackplan analysis posts

My wife and I had the good fortune to see Mark Knopfler and Emmylou Harris in concert last summer in support of their All the Roadrunning album. After a fabulous solo vocal by Emmylou, Knopfler remarked to the audience, "There is only one … Emmylou Harris". I absolutely agree. She has been a favorite artist of mine for decades and I believe she is doing some of her best work now. I listened again this week to Red Dirt Girl, an album that showcases an artist still at a high point in her musicianship, but with the wisdom and strength that comes only from the experience of life's lessons learned. Moving, haunting, atmospheric … there is only one … Emmylou Harris.

Track Plan Analysis, Part 1

2007-10-07T14:20:00.000-07:00

"Don't ask me what I think of you, I might not give the answer that you want me to." One of rock's more clever lines, penned by Peter Green in the early days of Fleetwood Mac. This phrase has been echoing in my mind recently after a couple of experiences trying to help newbie layout designers on the Internet.

Regular readers will already know my concerns about the simultaneous proliferation of cheap or free CAD software and weak layout designs on the Internet (some CAD, some pencil and paper). Undaunted, I still occasionally find myself trying to help people with their ideas (yes, I'm a slow learner). So both on-line in the forums and off-line in private emails, I've tried to offer design advice.

The outcomes are almost always disappointing. I think it's often a case of mismatched expectations and experience.

There's one group of folks posting designs who are looking only for adoration of their "baby", not for advice on how to make it better. Good luck getting these savants to incorporate needed changes. Another group possesses very little background on model railroad layout design principles but insists on pressing forward with their own design regardless. These situations can be very frustrating, because there's no common language to use: if the newbie doesn’t know what constitutes a runaround or a switchback, it's darn-near impossible to help them understand what you're trying to point out.

A final group just isn't serious about what they post. After many helpful respondents offer advice, the original poster replies, "Oh well, I'm not moving out of Mom's condo for at least two years anyway, so I'm not really sure what space I'll have." Thanks a bunch, Junior!

I enjoy helping people, but the individual interactions often seem unsatisfying for both parties. So what to do? Perhaps an answer is to spend a little time and effort in a few blog posts describing what I look for in analyzing a plan, in print, on-line, wherever.

I've written indirectly about some of these ideas before, in earlier blog posts about the 8 Tricky Traps of layout design (here, here, and here). But this is looking at things from the other way around: how to analyze a model railroad track plan when considering it for long-term enjoyment, space efficiency, ease of building, maintenance, and operation, etc.

I'll list these ideas in a (very) roughly sequential order, but I don't follow this order rigidly in my analysis. I might skip around if there's a glaringly obvious shortfall or an evident highlight that merits priority focus. I'll present the first three ideas in this posting, with more to come in future blog entries.

1) See the space, not a table

Typically, the very first thing I like to understand when considering a model railroad layout design is the space it will occupy. What's the overall size of the room, how does one enter the space, where are the windows and other obstructions, etc.

Many plans are drawn and presented without any indication of the space which they occupy. And very often, these are drawn as one or a couple simple rectangles. For example: 6'X6'; two sheets of 4'X8' plywood in an "L", a 12'X12' monster with "Prairie Dog Village" pop-up holes, or the "sacred sheet" HO 4X8 (and regular readers know how I feel about those!).

I'm willing to bet that 9 out of 10 times, designing a model railroad layout solely to fit building material manufacturers' preferred sizes of sheet stock is a mistake. It's easy to see that a more-interesting layout will fit in the same sized room as will a 4X8, once one considers the aisles necessary for construction, maintenance, and operation.

It's certainly more challenging to design a layout that makes best use of the available space, but the rewards of greater long-term interest and better access make the extra effort worthwhile.

While considering the space, I also think about aisles, duckunders (if any), and overall reach required. Lots of plans flunk out at this stage, or require substantial rethinking and rework.

2) Thematic schematic

A model railroad schematic is the unwinding of the track plan to show the relationships between the various elements and connections. When I consider the schematic of a plan, I am looking first to see if it is logical and comprehensible (not the same thing!). Next I am thinking about what themes or concepts this schematic can support from an operating and/or model railfanning standpoint.

The image below is John Armstrong's Pennsylvania and Potomac from 101 Track Plans for Model Railroaders.

When we unwind this plan into its schematic, we discover that it's basically a continuous-run with a reversing connection.

With this type of schematic, it's possible to support a decent amount of operation, even in a relatively small space. Layouts with a lot of odd alternative routings and short-cuts can be hard to understand and operate and may not prove interesting in the long run.

I don't always sketch out the schematic when looking at a straightforward track plan, but it's a step I will take when trying to analyze something more complex. Since many designers either don't understand schematics or don't bother to check them, many plans are offered up for discussion (or even published) with inherent routing flaws.

3) To stage or not to stage

Personally, I like staging. I include it in most of my designs because I like the idea of trains leaving the visible layout to go "somewhere else" and for trains to arrive on the visible layout from "somewhere else". This gives me the feeling that the visible modeled scene in front of me connects with, and is influenced by, the larger unmodeled world.

Having said that, I'm not one to insist that every model railroad track plan requires staging, although many more could benefit from staging than are drawn with it. It depends on the owner's desires for the layout. An interest in operations or model railfanning seems to me to suggest staging, while a layout designed instead primarily for display of models might not suffer through lack of staging. (And some model railroaders just can't see the point of placing any track where it's secluded or hidden.)

What I am looking for in this step is to see if the owner's desires are reflected in the plan. Assuming there is staging, I am next looking for accessibility, capacity and the flexibility in the way the staging connects to the fully modeled scenes. Are the staging tracks sufficient in number and length to support the owner's desires and/or rolling stock inventory? Can trains from staging run only one way around the layout with no way to return?

I recently saw an HO layout design posted with a number of staging tracks that appeared to be about 18" to 24" in length. Unless it's an interurban or streetcar layout (and this was not), those clearly aren't long enough to be useful. Yet the design was greeted with the standard "Great, you’ve got staging!" litany of comments from the forum peanut gallery.

Track plans that survive this first round of analysis pass on to the consideration of more subtle, but equally important, elements. More on those later.

Index to all five trackplan analysis posts

You're not an expert if …

2007-10-01T07:21:00.000-07:00

One of the things I find just plain silly is the large number of people on Internet forums who believe that they can present themselves as expert modelers by parroting certain stock criticisms or truisms that they feel denote expert status. As a public service, here are seven of these tired bromides … none of which mark you as an expert modeler.

Criticizing Model Railroader magazine does not make you an expert modeler.

No, it’s not perfect for everyone, but MR is the "big tent" that serves most of the hobby pretty well. Yeah, yeah, we get it, you're telling us you're much too advanced for MR magazine. We just don't believe you. Or care.

Unstinting loyalty to Athearn Blue Box does not make you an expert modeler.

Good grief. There are lots of terrific models on the market today. Some of Athearn's products are fine … some, with their warped car weights and meat-grinder drives, are better left as a hoary memory of the past.

Worshipping at the altar of Allen (or Ellison, or Westcott, et al) does not make you an expert modeler.

Being a groupie doesn't impart any special status to your modeling. Especially if it closes your mind to the myriad different approaches and concepts that can inform and improve your modeling and enjoyment of the hobby.

Complaining about prices does not make you an expert modeler.

No, it's not the world's cheapest hobby. But allowing for inflation, model railroading gear is a better buy relative to the past than are homes, gasoline, and automobiles. (Here's a tip: complaining about the price of cars doesn't make you Jeff Gordon, either).

Denigrating newbies and casual hobbyists does not make you an expert modeler.

Still haven’t started your layout because you haven't yet tracked down the names of the porters in all the Pullman cars operating over your stretch of mainline on April 9th, 1955? Your dedication to prototype authenticity is awe-inspiring. But it doesn't impress me to hear you rant about the guy who's actually building and enjoying something, albeit with some anachronisms. In fact, complaining about that guy's lack of modeling rigor just makes you sound like a bitter twit. Yo bro', it's a hobby!

Constantly predicting the death of the hobby does not make you an expert modeler.

These self-appointed Jeremiahs of the Johnson Bar harp incessantly about the impending death of the hobby, brought on by the proliferation of ready-to-run, the horrifying influx of unwashed masses who don't know their John Allen from their John Armstrong, and the fluoridation of public water supplies. Not that these folks ever do anything to bring newcomers into the hobby. Oh no, they've got much too much on their plate defending the hobby from the rabble who just want to build layouts and enjoy the process.

Kvetching about ready-to-run does not make you an expert modeler.

Face it, pilgrim, the hobby has changed. Models today are much more detailed than even 10 to 15 years ago. Way back when, RTR models were just kits that someone had assembled … now they are engineered for efficient production. Not everybody has time and skills to whip up an SP C10 2-8-0 MacGyver-like from two old tin cans and a roll of solder. But they can still build a great layout and that's a fine thing. And if you insist that scratchbuilding everything is the only true way to model railroad, have at it! Let us know how the armature-winding is going …

Of course, the people who need these tips the most won't see themselves in this list. They'll just stay in the group I like to call Doggedly Fretting about Unimportant Stuff (DFUS). In case you're wondering, that acronym is pronounced "Doofus".

Note: This post in no way is meant to criticize people who make the investment in time and effort to improve their skills, scratchbuild, and/or research the prototype. I find their efforts appealing and motivating. I have also found most of the true expert model railroaders I've met to be helpful, inclusive, and embracing of change. Unlike most of the DFUS crowd.

Warren Haynes has long been a favorite. Another member of the extended Allman Brothers family, his brawny vocals and smooth playing are a nice complement. Gigs with the Allman Brothers, The Grateful Dead(!), his own Gov't Mule, and solo make him one of the hardest working guitarists in rock. I enjoyed listening to Gov't Mule's The Deep End (Vol. 1) this weekend, which saw the surviving members of the original band teaming with a legendary roster of guest bass players, vocalists, and guitarists. The results are nicely diverse and it's interesting to hear some legendary players inspiring, and inspired by, Haynes and drummer Matt Abts.

Lost weekends

2007-09-23T17:18:00.000-07:00

I've never been a big partier, so the title is not referring to some dissipative debauchery. Instead, it's describing the handful of weekends I've spent infatuated with a change in direction of what I plan to model. Most of these have been brief divergences driven by some off-hand discovery, article, or idea.

When I moved to the Bay Area in 1997, my plans were to build a proto-freelanced shortline/secondary mainline based on the proposed-but-never-built Midland Pacific. My layout design and operating plans for the Midland Pacific were covered in detail in the Layout Design SIG's Layout Design Journal # 35, December 2006.

Within a few years, I shifted concepts to a prototype-based Bay Area plan focused on San Jose and environs. I worked on this for a couple of years, until one day while on a walk I realized that San Jose was ten pounds of sugar in the five-pound sack that was my garage. The only way I could get all the things I really wanted into a layout was to proto-freelance. This led me to the Oakland Harbor Belt (OHB) layout currently under construction in the garage. I remain happy with this concept and I'm looking forward to it slowly taking shape.

But along the way, I've had ever-so-brief dalliances with other ideas, locales, eras, even scales. There was the one long holiday weekend (while my family was out of town) spent feverishly on the computer wrapping an HOn3 Hawaiian-themed proto-freelance layout into my garage space. Operations would have been somewhat limited with no interchange, but at least my HO-chauvinist friends could have read the car numbers. I decided I liked the OHB better, but I did get the germ of an idea for an article out of it, slated for publication soon in the commercial press. So that weekend wasn't really lost.

Another model RR crush was on the Central California Traction (CCT), an eminently modelable traction line turned diesel shortline. (Fan site here, the RR's official site here) This one was pretty serious, dropped only when I decided the lack of suitable models in N scale for the period in which I wanted to set the layout was going to be too difficult for me to overcome. Friend Dave Stanley has since written a terrific book on the CCT with Jeffrey Moreau. Fortunately, the book had not been published when I went through my brief CCT obsession, or who knows where I would have ended up! Once again, the focus was not wasted, because later I had the chance to do a custom proto-freelanced HO design for a client based loosely on the CCT and the neighboring Sacramento Northern.

One other weekend fling was with the Modesto and Empire Traction. This is a very neat little shortline that does some pretty big-time railroading in a few miles of industrial park in central California. In the end, my interest in rail-marine brought me back home to the OHB, but the idea of shoehorning some tight HO curves into the garage for a couple of Bachmann 70-tonners was good for some heated doodling. Eventually cooler heads (and some radius reality!) prevailed.

This last affair came to mind this month with the article by friend Trevor Marshall in the October 2007 Railroad Model Craftsman. Trevor does a great job outlining the present-day M&ET and offering a neat Free-Mo based layout design concept. It's a two-part article, so I am really looking forward to next month's issue. This is a very modelgenic prototype, especially for contemporary or near-contemporary layouts. No tangible results yet from my M&ET infatuation, but there is that long, empty wall in my office … and there are still some 70-Tonners around ….

Each of these brief flirtations has ultimately strengthened my focus on the OHB. The explorations of different eras, themes, even scales helps bring to light the reasons I made the choices and trade-offs that led to this concept. Hopefully these lost weekends will be fewer in number (and less intense in severity) as construction continues, but I'm glad for the perspective they brought along the way.

This weekend's guilty listening pleasure was Un-Led-Ed by Dread Zeppelin. Yes, a reggae band fronted by an Elvis impersonator doing Led Zeppelin covers. I can't explain why I enjoy listening to it … and I have even less justification for why I bought the CD in the first place. It was LA, I was young .... (alright, younger) This is definitely a once-per-decade listen -- but I liked it! (Talk about a lost weekend …)

Too common to name

2007-09-19T09:14:00.000-07:00

Thanks to the Discovery Channel, most of us know the word describing animals that are active at night and rest in the daytime (like most bats, for example) -- it's "nocturnal". But is the word for being active in the day and resting at night on the tip of your tongue? It's "diurnal". Because I was a biologist once (a long, long time ago), it's a word I know well. But for most people, it's not a regular part of their vocabulary.

Why is that? It would seem that the word (diurnal) that describes our own mode of life would be more common to us than a word (nocturnal) that describes a foreign mode of life. The reason it's not, I submit, is that some things are almost too common to notice, remark upon, or even name. But those common things make up most of our life experience. The exceptions are memorable, but the common occurrences, sights, and experiences make up our definition of normal life.

"So how does this relate to layout design, operations … or really, to anything I care about, Byron?" you may ask. Simple. When we build a layout or design an ops session, I think it's easy to become focused-in on something unusual, something unique. Some amount of that defines the character of a prototype or a place, to be sure. But too much emphasis on the exceptional can give our layouts or op sessions an air of unreality.

This came to mind recently looking at Jim Boyd's photo of an Illinois Central E6 passing through Rockford, Ill. in June 1965 in the October 2007 issue of Railroad Model Craftsman (page 47). The subject of his photo is obvious, the relatively unusual (by that time) E6 on the point of the Land O' Corn. But there are a myriad of details in the rest of the photo that scream -- OK, whisper -- "reality". The longer I looked at the photo, the more these became obvious: signs hanging from storefronts; some windows open, some closed; access ladders; power poles; etc. While the rare E6 is interesting, the humdrum details make the photo look real.

If we were asked what we noticed about the photo, most of us would be hard-pressed to name a lot of these everyday elements -- they are so common we filter them out. But they are worth the extra effort to think about and include in a design or ops session. Layout Design SIG founder Doug Gurin and others speak of "modeling typicality", and that's excellent advice. And of course, it's possible to overdo these details into a cluttered mess that overpowers the viewer. The typical is not always easy to appreciate, or easy to capture, but its ubiquity makes it an important consideration.

An "eye for the usual" sounds like a contradiction in terms, but it's modeling the things that are "too common to model" that gives a scene life.