“Design” vs. “Planning” opinions...

John,

I plan something to give me an overall view of what I intend to accomplish. For example, buy a house with a large basement, finish the basement with a large train room included, build the layout bench frame out of 2x4's, use Atlas track, an so on.

Once I have a good idea of what I want and can do, I design the layout and other things. This means using software such as RR-Track: "RR-Track is the answer for all your toy or model train layout design headaches." and a CAD (Computer Aided Design) software for the bench design, wiring, etc.

Alex

IMO it starts with "vision" which includes era, roads included, financial, growth rate, degree of scale.

Then "design" follows which includes track design, buildings, locomotives and rolling stock, and scenery.

From those, "planning" which is a schedule of when component is purchased and then installed in the design. Planning would include the ability to operate in the midst of all the stages of constructing the design.

I would have to agree I think design encompasses a complete concept of the layout, but while planning may be more than just a track plan to some people, it takes in far less than a complete concept.

So I guess when you got your first train that Christmas many years ago, you didn't take it out of the box and start playing with it until you decided what era, locale, etc., you were going to simulate with that oval of track that came in the box?

My humble opinion, and that's all it is, is that there are 2 kinds of train enthusiasts; those who do indeed want to build a "model railroad" (and have the space to do so) and those who simply want to "play" with trains. I am in the latter. I have neither the space nor the desire to research and build a particular spot out of the many that trains run through. I have a plan to display my wife's Bedford Falls collection of buildings and figures. Part of them will be arranged as a sort of town and the rest spread throughout the space pretty much willy-nilly or simply on an added shelf. There will be 3 trains running in relatively simple ovals on 2 levels. I don't have any desire to run a train into a forest and come out with a load of logs that gets delivered to a saw mill and then to a lumber yard. While I enjoy watching that, I have no desire or the funds/space to replicate it.

I also could not care less what road names I use. I might buy an Alaska Railroad diesel simply because I like its blue and yellow color scheme. I intend to buy an Old West style 4-4-0 that certainly doesn't belong in Bedford Falls, but I like the "look". I don't even care about the buildings or landscaping. I could just build a multilevel display table for my wife to arrange her buildings, but adding the trains gives me something to do and a place to go recall a few memories from when I had a toy train to play with all those years ago. So in your world, I should pack up my trains and put them back in the attic.

And when I post a track design, it's because someone asked for it. Many people just like me don't really have any idea what they want to model until they see what kinds of track arrangements might fit their space. Like me, they might not know or care what road names they will use. They may not care about landscaping or any number of other things you care about.  I've seen all kinds of layouts that are nothing more than ovals with action accessories placed willy-nilly around the track because someone enjoys collecting/playing with them. The accessories have no relationship to each other and the trains are there simply to activate the accessories. I've responded to people who say they want O72 min curves, a large yard and dual mains going over/under each other in their space. I don't care what industries they plan to have or what road names they want to use. I want to see if I can fit what they want in their space and that's what I try to show them. I don't pretend to know what they want or to force my idea of how I'd use the space on them. I've seen many people begin construction and then see they could add a little mining operation here or there, so they add it. I've seen people build their carefully planned model railroad and then tear it down to start all over because modeling is generally a "living" process and tastes change over time. You see something new and wonder if/how you could add it to your layout. You get tired of that logging operation and change it to a coal mining operation. Some folks just want to run trains and will fill in the space with whatever strikes their fancy at the time without some elaborate plan.

Basic project management: Design encompasses the customer needs (specifications, values, principles, emotion).  Planning encompasses the goals, objectives, and activities needed to meet the customers needs (rules, procedures, results).

I agree with John and Mark.

Dave brings up an excellent point that I thought of as I was writing my earlier response.  He is in the camp that wants to run favorite trains in an interesting way, with few malfunctions.  The track plan can be complex or simple, but the important thing is to make grades, clearances, curves. Etc work out for smooth running.  The trains could be of all one road or an eclectic mix.  There is nothing wrong with that. Limited space has always restricted me to some kind of round and round loop, and I have had to imagine the train going from one location to another.

John is looking at replicating a realistic railroad whether real or imagined going from one location to another.  That is where the design comes in.  This is good too.  It is whatever you like.

i guess I fit somewhere in the middle.  As I get older, I am becoming more content with mixing things up, but I will still have an overall concept, though it may be much more carefree than I would have a few years ago.  I have to be realistic about what I can fit in a room less than 12 x 12 in O gauge.

John,

I disagree with your definition of the terms. You have provided your interpretation. Design can be all encompassing withplanning the execution or creating of the layout as part of the design process.

Most folks just want to get some track and run trains in the space that they have available with the budget they can afford. They are afforded links to learn, read and view. But, in the end, they want to know what time it is and not how to make a watch.

A thoughtful track arrangement offered with knowledge to simply provide more play value with a given set of limitations is a design. It offers the information needed to plan the acquisition of materials to construct a layout to run trains. A track plan is one of the results.

Thus "design" may be a substantive referring to a categorical abstraction of a created thing or things (the design of something), or a verb for the process of creation, as is made clear by grammatical context

I think you are mixing modeling a railroad into the interpretation of the definitions.  You are also ignoring the personal indulgence of an individual's desire of reality and fantasy. Clarke Dunham recently wrote eloquently about this. You've added fantasy to your own railroad to enhance the enjoyment of it. (bridges, recently) Was that designed or planned?

Do you challenge Norm Charbonneau's use of an oval as not being Pennsylvania Railroad enough? Is Alex M's (both, one replied above) layout not designed enough for you?

The design  varies according the individual's needs and the designer's use of the various design disciplines.

I can agree that forethought should be used. The novice doesn't care, that comes as one's interest matures. Don't assume that forum members haven't given any thought to their layout design when they request assistance with a track plan.

You can call it anything that you wish to call it if you have a layout, want to build a layout or like to play with trains.

PS. - my handout is attached. I relinquish my remaining time back to the chair.

Carl, 

You relinquish the rest of your time to the chair!  That is a good comment.

I have seen your handout before. Very good!

I'm planning to design my layout.....LOL

It comes down to a matter of semantics, usually design encompasses the vision, the planning usually involves the things needed to do to get that to happen (for example, the design would be figuring out what you want on a layout, do you want tinplate/toy or more realistic, do you want to do realistic operations or just run it). To me the design would also encompass the track arrangement to meet those goals, since you design the track layout, whether pencil and paper or in a program. You also can design things like the table itself, the height, the length an d width, etc...

Planning to me is the nuts and bolts. Some would argue that the design is part of the planning process, that design is a first step to planning.....to me planning is things like figuring out how much track I will need and figuring out how to buy what i need given my constraints, it would encompass things like whether to buy pre built table or do it myself, then do the planning to buy the wood and hardware I would need; if I was planning to do a specific railroad, planning might encompass figuring out what kind of rolling stock and engines I want to have and figure out how to pay for it. 

In the end, though, I don't think the terminology matters much, it comes down to semantics to me, and to be honest most people on this forum and other places that ask for design help usually are thinking of track plans, simply because a lot of us (me included) tend to think of running the trains, rather than creating a whole stage play recreating the 'real' train experience.