"Crowded" versus "Roomy" layouts?

Kind of like Country boy vs City boy.Neither would change there ways for anything.Nice layout.

My layout is pretty well packed, but not really by design.  As a new scene is thought of and installed, I can't bear to remove an old one.  Urban sprawl?

Given my druthers I would do minimalistic.

BUT... (and there's always a 'but' right!) I have all this stuff that I only get to use and see once a year on my Christmas layout.  So I like to have it all, or most of it, out on the layout.

When one looks at my layout by necessity they have to take in small segments one at a time.  Each is an independent scene and self contained.  Scenes are often only separated by a stretch of track - but that's what makes it easy to view them independently.

Given the size of 'O' stuff and space that track and trains take up, unless you have huge spaces, or not much interest in scenes, we're almost forces to pack it in.

And you're right, there's no right or wrong.

- walt

My layout is based largely on industry so its pretty crowded(at least getting there)

Cesar

Nice layout photos, Lee!  Also great to have some "living room" for the trains, tracks and buildings.  I'm a bit more restricted, I believe, because of my basement size.  Overall size of the layout is 20' X 22', but that includes aisles to reach the center portions of the layout. 

For that reason, when I began planning the layout, I figured on multiple levels, originally two, then three and in the final form, four distinct levels all connected by tracks.  In fact, you can't operate around the whole layout without traversing more than one level.  The lowest portion is 30" above the floor ranging up to 60" at the highest level.  In that space I have crowded in over 750' of track with some 65 switches. 

So, the answer to make the layout look more realistic and offer more "open" space was to include a lot of tunnels and hidden trackage.  Probably about 1/3 of the track is unseen, with one section about 65'of hidden tracks where the train runs a long distance before reappearing on the other side of the room.  Fortunately, I haven't experienced too many derailments or wrecks in the hidden areas because recovery, in some cases would be rather difficult. 

But, virtually all open usable space on the layout is occupied by buildings, equipment, roads with vehicles, etc, so there are just no places for any new buildings as new ones come along.  I actually like it that way, preferring a more urban setting to wide open spaces, but there are mountains (hills) which are tree covered, have open cliff facings and also some very narrow streets.  For visitors, the layout looks so complicated that until they learn the track plan, most don't want to run trains.  Since all of my layout is interconnected, each train operator must understand where the other trains are at any one time.  My plan is to incorporate track signals, at least in bottle neck or high density track arrangements, but that hasn't taken place as yet.

Interesting topic, Lee.  I look forward to hearing comments from other forum members.

Paul Fischer

I'm with you Lee on liking the open spaces and great natural scenery. That is just my personal preference but I admire the urban and industrial setting of some like Cesar's above and both Franks (53 & Monsoon). It would be great to have a small aircraft hanger to be able to incorporate both styles!

On our old layout we tried to give the feeling of great expanses and even where there was a station or other buildings necessary, I wanted the ground cover, rocks, trees, and other scenery to still show through.

Nice photos. I'm partial to the "less is more" concept when it comes to track for non-urban/industrial areas. In the grand scheme of things, once you leave an industrial area, there's more scenery than track right-of-way. Less track makes the layout look bigger with respect to depth. I've been "scouting" several areas (http://maps.google.com and http://www.historicaerials.com are great for that kind of stuff) looking at small-town areas and branch lines. I figure that by the time I get a sufficient area to build the layout I'll have more than enough prototype data to work with.

When it comes to a "realistic" layout less is more.  When it comes to a display type layout anything goes.

Pete

Sam,

Great pictures of the layout!

Cesar

Nice photos Lee, and another great topic starter from you.

I have seen Lionel layouts where the track and operating accessories are very crowded, and they are delightful in that they truly capture the post war layout era.

My layout is modern hi-rail, and I try to mimic realism with a balance of track buildings, and scenery.

I like the open country side, only have one town on one end of layout. and a not crowded industrial area along on one long side.Plenty of room for climbing grades and running long trains.

For me, if it's postwar style, cram it with track and accessories. if it's scale engines and cars, then a sparse look is more pleasing to my eye.

 I like them all.  A layout is a personal expression of what you enjoy.  Also, less idealistic perhaps, what you can accomplish with your available time, space and money.  Lee, I certainly wouldn't second guess your approach to the hobby.  I would say you are right on track.  Rock on.

Something in between works for me. 

I tend to lean on having more scenic elements however every time I see a layout that is minimalistic I'm reminded how nice it looks going the 'less is more' route.  Unfortunately, I think both have equal draw if the layout is well done.  Might be an excuse to have two layouts...lol

--Greg

Will

The large lake and pine forest is fantastic. It reminds me of the movie location Cedar Lake in California were a number of western movies were filmed in the thirties and forties. 

It really depends on what you are trying to accomplish. Many of the layouts I have visited have both as you describe it.

Part of my layout deals with the big city which by definition means the scenery is close together. It comes down to personal taste I guess.

I like the more open layout which means we ought to be in N scale. Thats my personal preference, I like all layouts.

Lee, it was a pleasure having you and your wife over yesterday to see the layout and run some trains.  Thank you for the kind comments about the layout. You raise a very good question and one well worth exploring,

The funny thing is when I started planning this layout about 7 years ago, it was to have a lot of wide open spaces with a large farm and coaling area with a small town and urban area.  Over the years I have been very fond of architecture and about five years ago started upgrading the buildings for the layout.  Plans start out small but then you see a cool building at a show and buy it, your son builds several buildings as presents, your wife finds some really nice custom built houses for Christmas, a wonderful diorama jumps out to you at York and insist you adopt it, your wife has a custom building of your favorite restaurant commissioned as a surprise gift, and then horror of all horrors, Woodland Scenics introduces their wonder line of detailed buildings and before you know it, you have no room left for forest or farm land or wide open spaces.  Each structure has meaning to me as they remind me of the craftsman who built it or the person who thought enough to give it to me or I just love the look of it.  I have custom buildings built by Rusty Clinard, Paul Freaze, Stu Gralnik , forum members Moonson (urban renewal site) and Frank53 (Annabell Lee's Home For Wayward Girls),Myron Biggar (the first building he did for the Ameritown series), Dubes Railroad miniatures, Billy Williamson, a small tank I purchased from Alan Graziano back when he set up in the Purple hall, and several builders I discovered at York but have lost their names, as well as some structures I have built myself.

Having been back in the hobby as an adult for 38 years, you meet a lot of fine folks that have in their own way contributed to the memories I experience each time I run my trains.  It is difficult to decide which ones are no longer needed so one winds up with "urban sprawl" such that is very evident on my layout.

So, instead of enjoying watching the trains go behind and through trees or mountains, I watch them go between and behind buildings.

Turns out the road to an enjoyable layout is a journey and not a destination.

I am having more fun that a human being should be allowed to have!

Happy railroading,

Don

Lee that is an awesome looking layout, will Alan be featuring it in OGR anytime soon?

Would love to see a video on it as well.

Crowded can be just as bad as too roomy.

it all depends on what you are trying to accomplish.

My solution has always been to model a realistic scene, within the confines of my layout dimensions.

Although, I do not like "toy train" layouts, I also do not have the skill, time, or money for a 100% scale layout.

Nor do I like layouts that seemingly try to cram in every scenic detail just for the sake of doing it, i.e. waterfalls, mountains, all in non realistic and crowded settings, along with the same old buildings we see on every other layout.

Therefore, I model a scene the way scale modelers do, i.e. no crowding, and enough room to be realistic as possible, without breaking the bank or being too detail oriented beyond my skill.

For example, one side of my layout will be tracks leading to GCT, but because the 100th anniversary GCT is very small, I do not see it as a centerpiece or being placed around other buildings that dwarf it, i.e. standard Lionel or MTH buildings.

Instead, it will be placed at the far end of the layout at the end of a long stretch of track to simulate distance.

A NYC backdrop, and HO scale buildings on the skyline will enhance the distance effect.

Leading up to it will be building fronts and full buildings closest to the viewing area.

I think my layout would mimic real life. More empty at first but then fill up with time and money. Currently it is the most crowded per square foot of any I have seen. I can do that be cause it is only 8x8'.

We all are in command of our own empires and see our domain from our own eyes. When you are in restricted space, you do the best you can.

9x11

Here it is

http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=eS43Lokq5u0

Don't change yours, Lee!  What I most remember at most convention layouts I have been out to see, are "acres of Plasticville".  Everything is crammed together, and you can't even visually separate out a scene.  I also see that in almost every magazine layout spread I see. Worse yet, I have over twice as many buildings sitting on shelves as you do on your layout, and I fear I will wind up with that exact same problem, acres of structures.  I'd need a pole building in the back yard to have enough room for the space between towns I'd LIKE to have.   Yet, small layouts with one station, a siding, and a loop, look so artificial, with no purpose.  What can you do?

Another aspect of the "crowded versus roomy" look is how much you "compress" the real world where you do have buildings, etc. Before building, I experimented with buildings and cardboard mock ups laid out on my desk.  It was tempting to cram more in by using narrower streets, etc., but I am very happy with the look I have (below) even though it meant I had to lay out my #2 Loop with 64" not 72" curves.  But this is as much "compression" as I felt looked "real."  One thing that is not obvious here (that was the whole point in doing it) is that many of my buildings (both scratch and store bought) have had their depth trimmed - some of the store-bought were literally  run through a band saw to remove an inch of so of depth front to back: it doesn't even show.

Sparse or "crowded" seems secondary to the question: Is it done well?

Its more philosophy than practicality. I remember when Kalmbach through CTT was promoting less is more in their in house layout designs, pushing the environment as having a higher value than track geometry or the number of buildings..wide open spaces seemed to be the point...and fairly recently, they had some huge spaghetti designs and then to come full circle, most recently went to 4x8..and all of this relates to the foot print of the layout, and all layouts use selective compression.

All of them are fantasy versions of reality. 

Then it becomes which imaginary environment do you prefer, what drives your imagination? Some must have whimsy, some require realism, some require this or that and then again in all of this, how much is too much of anything? 

There is no such thing in my book if it is done with panache and with a sense of artistry because, in the end who decides what style of music is best? What form of art?

A crowed layout can bring back a sense of awe whereas a more realistic approach can bring a strong sensibility of craftsmanship..The older Im get the more I realize layouts are three dimensional works of art and beauty is in the eye of the beholder.

I have one large town and one small town separated by a rail yard and refinery.

Electroliner, I find your post insightful and well written.

"The older I get the more I realize layouts are three dimensional works of art... "

I agree, but your original point is what really separates the possibility of a layout being art versus a hobby, i.e. is it well done?

I am 100% behind the idea that toy trains are fun and somebody can do whatever they want with their miniature world layout. But I do love to see when somebody applies true talent and design skill to create something special.

And as somebody wrote on the walls of of an art school years ago...

Less is more, more or less.

I have a 12x24 layout on pink foam.  I enjoy running trains but have not been inspired to add more realism.  have 29 fastrack switches, several accessories, toys etc. all switches and some accessories controlled by legacy remote.I would say this is a "crowded" layout woulden't you?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=e_JzHg2JIdw

This is a very interesting thread. I never thought about this before. I'm running trains but my layout is far from complete. I am working on a crowded industrial area but the much of the rest is open and TBD in regards to what goes where. Like someone else, the woodland scenic buildings have got my attention so that is an influence.

I like it that we're all different with different tastes or else it would be boring. If it's trains, I like it, crowded or not!

Terry

I have been pondering the same questions. Beautiful scale layouts are a sight to behold and make me marvel at all the work and planning that go into them. I admire the skill and artistry of the builder. One that I will never be. On the other hand toy train layouts put a big dumb grin on my face and fond memories in my heart. As I scenic my layout it will be a blend of both. And since I am more of a country mouse there may not be a city at all except in a backdrop on one side to show travel from a city to rural to back woods. Nothing better than rural America.

Here's my "roomy" layout:

John, is that basically a big over/under figure 8?  What is the grade and what are the outside dimensions of the layout area?

Sinclair, you're correct. The area is around 30' x 15' with it wider at one end. The grades are 1%. i built it with the easiest grades and widest curves possible because I wanted the large scale locomotives to look their best.

Don (DGJONES), can you post some pix of some of those structures done by those great craftsmen? Sounds like you have quite the collection and it would be fun to see your layout in juxtaposition to Lee's. thanks.

Jerrman

a couple of mine on the open side

This is a great thread and I feel compelled to share more thoughts on the subject. Most readers here are still in the acquisition phases of your lives while some of us, self included, are in the twilight years and downsizing again and again. I think layouts may take a different meaning as we phase through our lives. Mine has!

One of the points that has occurred to me over the years as my layouts have 'grown' and 'shrunk' since getting into the hobby. From extensive Christmas layouts in apartments in NY city to my first multi level complex layout in my first house, the desire was back then to build one able to run long passenger trains at nice speeds round and round the layout. This was the expansion phases of moving on into homes with more and more layout space.

However, the time soon came to down size and I am now, at age 74, here in Florida with perhaps the smallest, most crowded layout I have ever built and it  It is my second downsize layout and my well be my last. Therefore I jammed into it as much as I could of my favorite 'stuff' from the past.

The point of all this is that I still can, but rarely any more, buzz long passenger trains around in circles. Rather I have learned how to 'play trains' in my fantasy with the assistance of modern electronics.(DCS/TMCC). I call playing trains, the manipulation of trains through the motions designed into the layout at scale speeds. I still use my favorite Lionel accessories to execute these (1/4" = 1') manipulations.

I also have limited space in between tracks and up on my mountain and needed to 'squeeze in' those vignettes which reflect important things of my past life. Things like the active amusement park I knew as 'Palisades Park' as a kid, to the camping life my family had and a lake like the ones I always lived on or near all my life. There is a fishing scene and a hunting camp and a farm scene typifying the many farms I hunted and fished throughout my life. The stations represent those on both the Putnam and Harlem divisions of the NY Central. They are named as such and I see them that way. The town on top of the 5 trains underneath symbolize trains under Grand Central into which I commuted many years.

I was always in the car hobby and so I decided that time stopped in 1970 so the cars and trains I could place on the layout represented cars and trucks I once owned and the real trains I lived around when railroads were king. The car show had to have the older cars before my time on display.

The town is symbolic of a 1960's town of 'anywhere' in America. For all practical purposes, now, 'my home town' for most of my adult life. I also lived my first 20 years in NY City and since my layout space was limited, I built a subway system under the layout and have two subways running there. they are the Lexington Avenue express which I rode every day going back and forth to Fordham campus in the Bronx. The other is the subway series 'Yankee Special' which in my mind express delivers the fans to the world series, year after year.

Bottom line is we all have imaginations of what our layout means to us and we must make it represent that vision and fulfill our train world dreams.

Much of what I have digressed on can be seen in the 15 minute video in prior post.

Have fun and make the best out of whatever space you can muster.

Less is more. Don

Layouts that have 2 or 2 inches between the edges of the ties and the edge of the table look a lot better than having the track right at the edge. I made the mistake of having the track as close to the backdrop as clearance would allow in order to use all the available space. Way to late to change that.