"Crowded" versus "Roomy" layouts?

Jerriman, I  agree that some pictures to compare would be in order but Unfortunately, I am a computer "idiot" and cannot seem to take pictures that look good and have not learned to post them.  Also, my layout is very much a work in process and while I have the trains running well and many buildings and streets laid out, it is far from complete.

Thank you for the suggestion and will try in the next week or so try to figure the whole process out.

Don

I agree that it is too late to change, but not that it is mistake in all cases.  Nearly 3/4 of my bench edge has a track within an inch of it.  I like the look myself - sort of draws someone looking at the trains into the layout, and am not too concerned about trains falling off (one accident in seven years).  The main reason I did it though, is that it was a compromise that permitted me to just barely squeeze in wider diameters of loops where it matters most: those inches between "right on the edge" and "several inches back" made all the different. 

It could be there is no perfect layout.

I've always liked a more open layout than one that is filled up with stuff. However, it all depends on the type of scene you are trying to model.  

For a current example, w/ my postwar display layout - instinct would be to cram a bunch of operating accessories & spur tracks in there, but I decided to follow the way of the old display layouts & keep it open so everything is seen. 

Even on my Hi-Rail layouts I followed that rule - 

Model train layouts are really like pieces of art, and some you want to look at again and again. The nicest paintings for me are those with a foreground, middleground, and background, and multi-colors, like Thomas Kinkade paintings. Same is applicable to the layouts I've built and am currently trying to build. Here's a picture of my last layout that utilized the multiple dimensional technique:

I guess I find myself in the less crowded camp.  At least, that's my story and I'm sticking to it.    As to whether or not the layout will end up looking like that remains to be seen.    I have in mind a technique to use small groups of trees to try and separate scenic areas or vignettes.  Will it be successful?  Don't know yet.  I do have a lot of scenes planned for the Panhandle - still a work-in-progress.

George

Lee,

That is a great looking street scene.  I would appreciate learning the dimensions you used for street width (curb to curb), width of sidewalks and depth of curbs.  Thanks.

Thank you.  Easiest way to get it all is to check out OGR run 256, page 50 (it's in the digital library here).  I gave dimensions for everything and photos of how I assembled it there.  

Lee,

Your article was outstanding!  Thanks for taking the time to share all your work with everyone.  Your attention to detail regarding things like having a crown in the road was really impressive.

When all you can have is a 4x8 layout like I do, even leaving off most buildings, etc., leaves you with a super-cramped pike.

Nevertheless, I greatly prefer wide open layouts because (to me) the trains are the main event and when you cram stuff on the table you can't see the trains stretched out to their full visual advantage.

Busy layouts are fine, too, of course, but you are running a totally different kind of railroad at that point.

(Your layout is fantastic, btw!) 

Paul---that was a great looking layout you had.  Hope things are well!

Regards, Greg

I don't know if it is a Blessing or a Curse, But tearing down the old layout to move give me the opportunity to do better this time.

I will be starting with a 200+ year old barn so the first step is repairing the bad spots in the floor.

Then I will insulate the walls and toss a quick ceiling in it made of pink insulation sheets 3" thick (If I can get them now).

then I will build 30' x 16 feet of Layout, Shape, levels and trackplan to be determined.

RRTrack is again getting a workout as I try different thing for flow and functional working.

I intend to have businesses respecting my Families History (and some friends) in my Home Town.

Since my home town is a small place in the Mountains of Colorado, there will be lots of area with scenery and no buildings.

Ogden, UT is to the West so I'll be trying to fit in the Run the Big Boys ruled up from there to Wyoming. That gives me an excellent reason to run my Big Boy.

Your barn project sounds interesting Russ - What will you heat it with in cold weather?

Roomy verses crowded?  Great question.   I just decided yesterday to change my layout from a solid 24' x 24' in which I had crawl under and go thru a hatch to reach the middle to a hybrid shelf style layout with eisles and a lift out section by the door may be a little crowded but I and my guests won't have to crawl lol

joe in buffalo

I'm of the "roomy" persuasion myself, although most of my own layouts have ended up being a whole lot more crowded than I really want them to be.  Still, I see it as a matter of different strokes for different folks, and I enjoy and learn from nearly all layouts I have ever seen.

I just went over my layout and removed some items and it looks much better.  Got rid of the 840 Power station, 98 and 96 coal loaders and a 114 station.

My layout is not large 13 X 18 and I wanted to avoid the bowl of spaghetti look. I wish I had room for some wide open spaces so part of my layout is not to densely packed. On the other hand I love urbanscapes and part of my layout represents a small city and is densely packed, being careful not to overdo it. One way to trick the eye is to lay the track at a slight angle to the edge. Also an around the room as opposed to a table in the center gives more real estate and makes accessibility easier. It also gives the opportunity for the use of convincing backdrops, which visually increases the layout size and can achieve the wide-open look or make urban areas look larger.

While I like both, this article caused me to take a look at what I was doing and trying to accomplish. That said, I pulled up some track I laid for another route, made room for some streets track and moved the temporary EL section to storage until I'm sure I want it and where it would go.

Thanks for a great post. Terry

We are making our layout "roomy" on purpose.  Our railroad is located in a "sparse" area, a small bridge line.

I don't want to bury it in details, structures, etc., etc.

Two very small towns, etc.

Still a very time consuming process to detail even that.

The intent of the layout is a showcase for the trains, not structures, etc.  They will be there to complement the trains, like the roundhouse, turntable, etc.

One business district, "the island", which will have the door factory, etc.

We like it.

It will still take a heck of a lot of effort and time, but fun and worth it!

If I had the space to build a large layout, I think I'd probably end up with something leaning toward the "less" category.  While I greatly admire the work and skill that goes into highly detailed urban or big-city layout scenes, I feel that your eye does tend to follow the soaring architecture and elaborate terminals and stations that many people have.  Trains fight for the eye's attention, IMHO.  It still looks great.  And the realism factor is not be discounted.  But I think of my own preferences... I would much rather see a real life freight train in a setting like this...

versus seeing a train in a setting like this...

To me the train stands out so much more in an open area.  But as with a lot of things in this hobby, it all comes down to personal choice and taste.  

- Mike

I have been reading this thread with some interest.  I was not going to comment until I read Mike's post above...so....here goes.  I think the title alone makes certain implications.  If one were to ask another how they react to the word: "crowded" as opposed to "roomy", I think most would assume "crowded" is bad and "roomy" is good.  So...using that as an example, my layout would be considered "crowded" and by most perhaps that is a bad thing.  Well....from my perspective I wanted the crowded look.  I grew up as a boy in the industrial Chicago land area and there simply were no wide open spaces so to speak.  Yep, there were parks, etc. but I wanted to model the architecture...the scenes that I saw trains going through from my memories.  Is it perfect?....far from it.  Is it what I wanted?....yes sir!! 

I appreciate other's perspectives of how they want to model and I would never say or imply that I "think" the trains look better going through the scenery on one layout as opposed to another....why???....simply because I want to encourage folks to choose their own way to enjoy the hobby without overtly being subjective and to be as objective as possible. 

Alan

I'm a "crowded" fan. My layout has a 2' by 24' section that runs along the wall. The wall is painted with hills and trees. This is the least crowded space on my layout. Its purpose is to connect the 8' X 8' section that has my small town with the 6' X 28' section that is made up of the trainyard and facilities and the industrial section. The town has 28 businesses in it, very busy small town! The trainyard and industrial area has a 3 stall roundhouse, turntable, sand tower, water tower, coal tower, power substation and transformers, a crew house, a 'speeder' shed, a signal tower, a switch tower a 30" by 10" depot, 7 factories, three small retail, and 2 shacks. I will be putting some more industries and replacing a few. Crowded? not a bit. It looks like a small city should look like. If I can sqeeze out some more real estate I will. I have over 200 trees, a river and a park also. So the landscaping and the buildings both have equal representation. The bottom line is that when someone sees my layout, they can spend hours looking at all the different areas and continue to see things they missed the 1st, 2nd, 3rd time through. I tell them to look for the 15 dogs, 6 cats, 6 deer, 6 bear, 6 cows, 2 beavers, 3 squirrels, 3 pigeons and 2 crows. Again, the more the merrier! I like "crowded"!

Interesting discussion and responses from everyone on here. 

I personally prefer crowded for my Lionel layout as well.  I have a 10 x 6 table with a main figure-eight crossover loop that is folded back in on itself with O-31 and O-54 curves, as well as a tight O-27 figure eight in the middle, with 2 spurs that branch off on the one side, one of which is for the coal ramp. 

I keep things pretty separated in terms of era, with postwar stuff on the smaller loop and everything else on the main.  That said, the 4-truck US Steel flatcar that I recently bought doesn't handle O-27 switches apparently, so I may have to make some modifications.  Later on, I also want to put in a short elevated O-27 loop for my grandfather's prewar set, and maybe an exterior O-72 loop of one or two tracks for my dad's GG-1.  Regardless, its been a great bonding activity for both of us which is one of the greatest things about this hobby. 

It's interesting that most of you talk in terms of scenics. When I see "crowded layout", the first thing that comes to mind is a small layout with almost every inch of space crammed with track. I've seen enough "plans" for these.

My layout is only 5x8, so I've chosen a city/urban scene to make the "crowding" more realistic. It has  2 loops and one siding. I do not line my cars up on the roads to look like a traffic jam. My buildings are "compressed".

I find that most of my visiters don't give a hoot about the trains, but they spend close to a half hour checking out the animations, detailed building interiors, building on fire, fireworks, carnival area, Miller signs, etc. One time I got back downstairs with a very enthused group, and realized that I had forgotten to run the trains!

That's a great story!  Who needs trains? 

Pete

Absolutely! If you leave them out you have more room for buildings, figures, and vehicles!