Track plan for interesting scenery

ModelRailroadForums.com is a free Model Railroad Discussion Forum and photo gallery. We cover all scales and sizes of model railroads. Online since 2002, it's one of the oldest and largest model railroad forums on the web. Whether you're a master model railroader or just getting started, you'll find something of interest here.


Iron Horseman said:
Well, one cannot forget the comments are made with idea of the topic of the thread. The topic is layout track plans designed for scenic interest. If one is specifically making a plan to have scenic interest things are done differently than if one is designing for rail fanning, way freight operations, unit trains, dispatching, etc. And, "yes", I say there are things that can be "wrong" if one is going for one of those specific design goals. Example, if one is designing a layout to go around a Christmas tree then it is wrong to have a figure-8] track plan as there would be a crossing where the tree needs to be. A figure-8 Christmas layout would be screaming for two trees.

I'm just a bit disappointed this topic ended up in the N-scale section rather than the more general layout design area. It might get some more comments over there.
Click to expand...

LOL! RARE are the two layout owners with the same exact ideas as to how to 'run a railroad'! It all depends on what YOU want to see!

BTW, The other loop of the figure 8 can go around the pile of presents!
 
new guy said:
LOL! RARE are the two layout owners with the same exact ideas as to how to 'run a railroad'! It all depends on what YOU want to see!

BTW, The other loop of the figure 8 can go around the pile of presents!
Click to expand...
I actually thought of that but rejected it, as that would be more than an around the tree layout. That would be more of a Christmas layout about the tree. Analogies always break down when one takes them too far. Being a professional systems engineer I have to always take specifications (or requirements) very specifically and literally, that sort of rolls over into everything else I do also.

But none of that changes the bigger point that the topic of the thread is not generic layout design, but a track plan for scenery.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Iron Horseman said:
I actually thought of that but rejected it, as that would be more than an around the tree layout. That would be more of a Christmas layout about the tree. Being a professional systems engineer I have to always take specifications (or requirements) very specifically and literally, that sort of rolls over into everything else I do also.
Click to expand...

LOL! Understandable. I'm used to broader guidelines, "Just make it WORK and we'll 'fix' it LATER!" (we got 'gooks' in the wire!)

I apologize for any trauma the term gook may have caused to any gooks out there. I use it in this instance as a derogatory term for a member of the North Korean Peoples Army, so if it offends you or makes you want to cry, good.
 


So back to the real topic, If one considers the industries part of the scenery, then one can also do track plans that are specific for that industry. Often model railroaders will throw in a siding with the thought that they will come back and fit some industry into that space. A track planned for the scenic effect of that industry would be the exact opposite. Research would be required to find what sort of track arrangements a given industry normally uses. For example a local sand company has a siding that is really long up to the loader, then the track splits and has two shorter segments that are on a grade. This is so they can push cars up the short grade and use gravity to feed them through the loader. They then sit in the long lead closer to the main for the RR to come and pick them up.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
OleSmokey said:
I knew that, I was making a funny!I was a vietnam vet myself.
Click to expand...

THANKS for coming home. I try to tell all you guys that because it was not done at the time.

I was fortunate to know many in my youth and be trained by them in the Army!
 
Iron Horseman said:
So back to the real topic, If on considers the industries part of the scenery, then one can also do track plans that are specific for that industry. Often model railroaders will throw in a siding with the thought that they will come back and fit some industry into that space. A track planned for the scenic effect of that industry would be the exact opposite. Research would be required to find what sort of track arrangements a given industry normally uses. For example a local sand company has a siding that is really long up to the loader, then the track splits and has two shorter segments that are on a grade. This is so they can push cars up the short grade and use gravity to feed them through the loader. They then sit in the long lead closer to the main for the RR to come and pick them up.
Click to expand...

All well and good but there it begins to fall down, the grades at the sand facility are for REAL sand in REAL cars and we are not capable of that in HO or N. (are we?) Guys will bang they heads cause they can't fit the 'proto' tracks 'photo' perfect onto the table and they are not REALLY needed there for a model railroad.(it's a toy?!?!) It once again comes down to what YOU want to see on YOUR layout. LOL!
 


new guy said:
All well and good but there it begins to fall down, the grades at the sand facility are for REAL sand in REAL cars and we are not capable of that in HO or N. (are we?) Guys will bang they heads cause they can't fit the 'proto' tracks 'photo' perfect onto the table and they are not REALLY needed there for a model railroad.(it's a toy?!?!) It once again comes down to what YOU want to see on YOUR layout. LOL!
Click to expand...
No, the grades would be done specifically for looks, not for the real operation of the model. If one is designing for operations it is a different discussion. I think we are still talking apples and oranges. In the case of modeling for scenery it is not a toy anymore but a "model" of something real. If one wants a toy train then they can have a toy train, but that is also a different discussion.
 
Iron Horseman said:
No, the grades would be done specifically for looks, not for the real operation of the model. If one is designing for operations it is a different discussion. I think we are still talking apples and oranges. In the case of modeling for scenery it is not a toy anymore but a "model" of something real. If one wants a toy train then they can have a toy train, but that is also a different discussion.
Click to expand...


A fine line there to be sure, I'm looking at some kind of actual 'operation' for my layout along with the just 'play with toys' roundy round! LOL! I like em both! I've got the room, now I see the need for a real plan, I WAS playing and now I'm inspired to at least try to do something a bit more.
 
Might be a bit ( a lot) late on this but have to agree with Horseman (and others) that there are two distinct types of modelers, those who model "reality/operations" and those who model for visual aesthetics/scenery.

My layouts are, and always will be, scenery focused as that is what (I think) attracts the interest of most people, especially those not into model railways. As such, the "track plan" I make and trains are often secondary to the over all look of the what I see as the end result. The trains, in my little world, act as the "Tour Guide" through the layout, taking people from one place to the next, one scenery element to the next but add their own "interest" to the over all layout.

The argument of whether or not there is a right or a wrong way to do something I think depends on what facet of a layout you are talking about and, what type of modeler you are. The "operations/realism" modeler will show that there are right and wrong ways of doing something, track plan wise; while the scenery modeler will tell you to let your hair down and do what works for you, regardless of whether or not the track plan (or anything else) complies to the real world.

Scenery Versus Operations, a debate that will continue for ever and a day and will never fully be resolved with either side convincing the other that they are right or the other is wrong :)
 
Sadly, some people chose to take this thread in a totally different direction and make it about them and felt personally attacked.

The ones who actually know me and know what I have been doing for this hobby for many years understood that the word "mistake" might have been a poor choice but my point had nothing to do with right or wrong way to run their layout. Have plywood central with no scenery, run a train around a circle around a tree, I don't care. I have one too.

Yes, I probably should have said "Here is a great idea to make your layout look more realistic and at the same time POSSIBLY prevent an engine falling off the table, whether by a derailment or DJ's gut bumping the train as it passed as I leaned over the layout to grab something."

There! Everybody happy now?
 
Iron Horseman said:
So back to the real topic, If one considers the industries part of the scenery, then one can also do track plans that are specific for that industry. Often model railroaders will throw in a siding with the thought that they will come back and fit some industry into that space. A track planned for the scenic effect of that industry would be the exact opposite. Research would be required to find what sort of track arrangements a given industry normally uses. For example a local sand company has a siding that is really long up to the loader, then the track splits and has two shorter segments that are on a grade. This is so they can push cars up the short grade and use gravity to feed them through the loader. They then sit in the long lead closer to the main for the RR to come and pick them up.
Click to expand...

This is a very important point Mr Horseman. What I tried to do is to tie industries together as much as I could and also make the industries part of the scenery. I have cattle loading pens supplying cattle to a meat packing plant which is also in the layout. Grain elevators supply grain to a mill. A log loading deck supplies logs to a mill which in turn supplies lumber to a furniture factory and a lumber distributor on the layout. As I have stated many times, my layout is built for switching and industries like these generate a lot of freight traffic within the layout as well as shipping goods to points beyond the layout. Of course that are also customers who will need inbound traffic such as oil distributors, and freight stations which were a very important facility during the transition era. Atill working on it too.I had one building that was a manufacturer of irrigation equipment. Not any more. It will become a brewery. Sort of a generic building, but with grains being a local product, why not. Another customer.

I did try to work all of the different industries into the scenery also.
 


You must log in or register to reply here.




Affiliate Disclosure: We may receive a commision from some of the links and ads shown on this website (Learn More Here)

Back
Top