Skip to main content

DESIGN VS TRACK PLANNING/ARRANGING
 
I’m writing this blurb to share some “food for thought” with you, my fellow model railroaders, involving developing your future layouts in a manner that will give you a much greater level of satisfaction and enjoyment. I’m hoping to save you a lot of time, grief, effort and wasted money—that was my route—through the school of hard knocks.
 
I entered into this the greatest of hobbies in the early 1970s. For more than 45 years and counting, the overwhelming vast majority of model railroaders put their respective layouts together via track arranging (track planning). There is virtually no thought given to even the most basic design concepts. The track is simply placed where it fits best without regard to anything else.
 
Everyone’s first layout or two is a circle or loop of track; which eventually evolves into a tangled web of tracks typically referred to as a “spaghetti bowl.” The positive is the experience gained in laying and powering track. However, these layouts are almost always short-lived because the set-up is such an average person loses interest quickly.
 
Over the course of history, model railroaders have stated that the reason for their numerous track arrangements is for seeking a more interesting layout; yet these same people keep arranging track to fill space, via trial and error, with NO thought to a design process.
 
In regard to layout building, IT IS NOT ALL ABOUT JUST ARRANGING TRACK PIECES. That is the tip of the proverbial iceberg and unfortunately far too many people think it’s the end-all. It’s not. To this day when someone requests help planning a layout they are overwhelmed with track arrangements.
 
I am puzzled by the submitted arrangements because the requester gave no specifics. How do you come up with an arrangement without any information?
 
The first thing you need to know is exactly what it is you want to do. That absolutely will impact the track arrangement.
 
If you don’t know where you are going, how can you get there?
 
Some examples: a track arrangement for the Rockies would look different than the plains. A seaside arrangement would look different that the desert. A logging line would look different than a yard.
 
To maximize your satisfaction and enjoyment, I would respectfully suggest you consider “patterning” your design on reality. That would help any builder. I’m not suggesting duplicating a real railroad. I’m suggesting design your plan to simulate the actions of real life railroads, including their purpose and operations. This will provide you with fun!
 
You do not have to pick a specific railroad. You may pattern your fictitious free-lance railroad in a similar fashion to reality.
Please think about and focus on the three critical and essential elements in the formal Model Railroad Design Process:
 
Plausibility (believable), Purpose and Participation. Truly ALL great model railroads possess these features.
 
With respect to the Design Process for your future layout, ask yourself: Is your railroad believable? What is its name? Exactly where is it? What is its purpose? What does it do for a living? Last and certainly not least, how will you, and others, become actively engaged in the operation of your well thought out design?
 
I firmly believe that novices; inexperienced newcomers and even more seasoned model railroaders have grown so accustomed and conditioned, over such a long period of time, that they instinctually just arrange tracks in circle after circle and loop after loop with no rhyme, reason or purpose, or design process because that’s about 99.9% of what we have all seen. After all, we got our new sets like that didn’t we?
 
Your layout needs to be carefully designed, planned and well thought out prior to laying track. If you are anxious to get up and running, put down a loop of temporary track and enjoy while you plan your actual design.
 
Please be aware that there are alternatives that are much more engaging and fun for layout operators versus looping.
 
I strongly encourage everyone, as a fellow model railroad for many years now, to seek out and research information involving how real railroads are laid out, their purposes, their operations, and if you find something intriguing that you may be interested in modeling, research, research, research, analyze, plan and prepare, before you lay the first strip of track. This will maximize your enjoyment and give you a more satisfying design.
 
Know who your railroad is, where your railroad is, what your railroad does for a living, and how its operators will be an active and involved part of its operations.
 
I implore and challenge you to “think outside the box.” Don’t settle for another “plywood pacific” or “spaghetti bowl” track arrangement via trial and error. The examples of these styles of layouts are endless. Track planning (NOT DESIGN) books are filled with such arrangements rein enforcing the preconceived notion that all layouts have to be circles of track.
 
Learn about the model railroad design process, not just arranging track.
 
Resolve to do something great! Resolve to do something different! I love this hobby as do countless others. I hope that I have given you many things to consider that will help you plan your next design.
 
I shared this with you today and I really wished someone would have shared this with me about 45 years ago. It would have helped me immensely as a novice.
 
Don’t forget: Plausibility, Purpose and Participation for your DESIGN.
 
I hope to see your future great design in a magazine or on video. Good luck and best wishes!
 
John Robert Coy…………………………………………John
Original Post

Replies sorted oldest to newest

I somewhat agree with you, if you are trying to design a layout of a functional railroad.  There are some of us that design railroads for just train running.  Mine has 3 nested loops and I did that to allow for the max number of trains running at once in my space as that is what I enjoy.  I did add some spurs so that I could do some switching if I so desired, but they'll probably just ultimately be for parking.

So the 1st thing that needs to be answered before starting layout design, what is your desire, to run trains or to operate trains.  Your above comments are great for operating trains, but not so much for running trains, IMHO.  Remember, there are some of us that see these just as great toys to play with and enjoy.

John while I agree with everything you wrote the truth is a large percentage of O Gauge enthusiasts will agree with what Sinclair wrote above, and that's the way they enjoy the hobby. I often say there's no right or wrong way to go about this hobby. For me running trains in circles does get boring after a while. If I ever get to build a layout I definitely want it to be able to operate trains with at least one loop in case I feel like just sitting back watching them go around. 

The problem has many dimensions.  In one very important way, simple circle is more realistic than any point-to-point unless you are modeling a RR that was only a few hundred feet long:   You can run the train for more than a few minutes.  Trains go long distances which simply cannot be duplicated,. especially in O, on all but the most spacious of layouts. 

*I* would get bored just running my trains along a 20 foot shelf, which is all I would have if not for my loops.  No amount of switching satisfies my desire to see my trains run for a long period of time.  I don't care if they pass the same point in reality because my imagination is sufficiently capacious that I can see that point as many different points along the route.  The yard I have to bring trains in and out of is more than adequate to scratch any itch I have for "operation."  For me, "operation" is moving tonnage and passengers over the miles and miles, not putting this boxcar here and that tank car there.

I get what you're saying, John C., but different strokes, and all that.

Last edited by palallin

My advice to anyone starting out would be to design a small, simple layout with three features which let you do three things:

A loop, for continuous running.

One (or if possible, two) sidings, which let you arrange meets between two trains.

A couple of industry spurs, so you can practice setting out and picking up cars.

With these three features someone can practice three basic functions: switching, dispatching, and running and/or watching trains. Once you do that for a while, you will know what you like, and which function should receive the most emphasis when the next railroad is designed.

John,

I think your post is absolutely spot on.  I would agree (no offense intended to others with differing opinions) that some modelers don't even realize what they are doing and that different possibilities exist.

Becoming aware of these other possibilities and breaking the "habits" of layout planning (track arrangements) is more difficult than might be imagined.

George

John, I agree with your post.  I did everything that you have recommended and am very happy with the results.  My interests have changed considerably from what they were when I designed my present layout, but I have been able to make enough revisions to accommodate them.  I have always been torn between a point to point single-track mainline with many passing sidings and spurs with switching locations, and a double-track mainline that is a big loop for continuous running.  My current layout has both thus working quite well.  My lower double-track mainline is 201 ft long with what I believe is an interesting track plan.  I also have a single-track upper branchline with passing sidings and switching locations that is connected to the lower by two interchange tracks.  This allows me to have meaningful operating sessions and also continuous running of passenger trains and unit trains on the lower level.

I totally agree with everyone that there isn't a wrong way to enjoy this hobby, but I do think you can make it a lot more fun with the proper planning and execution.  

Art

With respect to this topic, I'm not trying to say right or wrong with any choice any person makes in regard to their respective layouts.  I'm NOT commending loop layouts. 

I'm merely sharing information.  

I, along with others, are making others aware that O scale, and other scales, can be successfully designed as operational/realistic layouts.  There are many folks who wrongly believe that O scale trains are on circles of tracks under the Christmas Tree.  Many are astonished when they see an operational/realistic 3-rail layout.  

CHECK OUT OGR #13 Great Layout Adventures!  (You are welcome Rich.) THE GLACIER LINE.  CHECK OUT BOB BARTIZEK'S LAYOUT on OGR VIDEO #12!

I have a layout that goes point-to-point, but at each end there are reversing loops.  I planned these as a means to allow trains to be reversed but others could use these for the "untouched" operation if they so choose.

The thing I personally never cared for with a circle/loop is that once a train leaves town A to the west, the next time I see that same train, it is leaving town A to the west.  That would never happen in reality.  Is there anything "wrong" with that?  No.  I'm NOT a rivet counter but that is just a preference of mine.  We all have our things.

My personal preference of a "loop" track is the "Dogbone" or "Waterwing"...because at least it gives the appearance that a train is actually going somewhere.  This configuration is even better in my opinion when there is a single line of track between the two reversing loops.  Then the train actually is going from one point to the next before returning.  That action simulates reality and brings the layout to life for me.

I'm very aware that its different strokes for different folks as it has been in my 45 years.  Again, I'm NOT saying right or wrong.  Whatever makes someone happy is what's best for that person.  We all enjoy this hobby in many different ways.  

Bill Bramlage's TOWER CITY is an unapologetic loop.  However, it is one of the most AWESOME layouts you will ever see!  Different strokes for different folks!  I love Bill's layout.  It is spectacular and truly one-of-a-kind!  

There is a large and ever-growing number of people moving toward operational and prototypical "O".  More people are becoming interested in the DESIGN PROCESS vs. just track arranging/planning.  The manufacturers have produced a staggering number of more scale and detailed models in the last 25 years than the "first 100" years.

The other evidence of operations popularity was a video I shared on MULTIPLE sites which has gathered over 1000 views in a 7 day period....it was the "trailing point vs. facing point" demonstration.  I have received countless likes for it.

There are a tremendous number of people who are interested in design and operations.  There are a lot of good people who still enjoy observation.  Both are fine and we all can enjoy our trains in our own way.

I share this because people frequently ask me how I came up with the idea for my layout...check out the Youtube channel--link below---and the Design Process is my answer.  I have written extensively about the Design Process including this blurb.

By writing about how to design a layout, I'm trying to help others who have frequently asks how the Glacier Line was created.  These folks are wanting to create their own illusion of railroad reality in miniature.

Have fun whatever way you enjoy your layout!  There's room for everyone in this the greatest of all hobbies! Good day to all!

 

 

 

 

John, I just read your post about the 4 X 8 layout with the four destinations, and was fascinated by your glacier line layout. I, like may other people here have been spending a lot of time on loop running, but in the interest of making the whole process more enjoyable I have been trying to incorporate more an more switching puzzles into my plan. I think it will be a great asset in keeping the young people engaged too. I will be seeking your help with that aspect on my next plan. Hope to talk to you soon. Thanks, Rich

I got back into Lionel trains about the same time you did, John.  When I purchased my first set as an adult, it went on a 4x8 sheet of plywood.  At that time I was looking to build a more realistic layout using Lionel trains.  Not long after that first set-up, I moved to the basement.  I didn't have a track plan on paper, but did have one in mind.  I laid track in a folded point to point with reversing loops at each end.  This gave me the longest run for the space available.  I was happy with this arrangement until my roster got too big for the single track to handle it.  

It's at this time I started drawing track plans on paper.  It saved alot of physical work.  It also allowed me to design layouts with automated operation much more easily than trial and error.  

I've never been a fan of circles of track.  But that's not saying it's wrong.  It's just not for me.  By the time I was building my last layout, my mindset had changed about Lionel.  Now I was more interested in building a layout that showcased all of the operating accessories Lionel made.  This is the point I am at today.  It's been twenty-five years since that last layout and I am excited to once again be working on it.  

Garden railroading is a completely different ball game.  I started with a modest amount of real estate and over the course of many years, managed to make land grabs until my present railway is about 150' in length and about 10 feet wide.  The nice thing about a garden railway is that track can be laid in the most realistic fashion, following contours of the Earth and working around things like flower beds and bushes.  

For those of us who want a showroom type layout there are countless plans in books to choose from.  Or one can always go to the drawing table.  

There was a somewhat famous author with regards to track planning who used the term "stage" as a means of running or operating trains.  The train appears from stage left or right, travels through the scene and exists stage right or left.  I have embraced that to a degree.  I have limited space so the run is a single track with a return loop at one end leading to a 3 track station/junction.  One leg goes to a return loop, the other leg climbs, passes over the single track half way back down the basement and again returns.  The basement is divided by a to the rafters mountain so there are 2 distinct scenes if you stand in one location or you can follow the train from one end to the other.  There are no yards, there was no space, there is no turntable, again space constraints.  The train appears from one end, travels through the scene, takes a path, moves on or reverses through the scene.  It is interesting, it serves a purpose and after 10 or 15 years never boring.  I agree some planning is in order, and some reading as well.

I am totally on board with John's philosophy of model railroading, but there is the opposite perspective which I call the "aquarium" railroading. It is not intended as a negative label, just a realistic observation. Those who love their aquariums love the relaxing feeling of just watching their fish swim around the aquarium. And sure there are small tanks, medium tanks, and large tanks. The fish investment might be as simple and inexpensive as gold fish and guppies; or it could be on the extreme side with expensive, exotic sea life. The aquarium enthusiast doesn't wish to operate the fish, they just experience a calm in watching them swim around the tank.

Likewise there are model railroaders that have no interest in a realistic operation of their railroad, they just find it relaxing watching the trains navigate their way through the layout, even if it is as simple as an oval on the carpet, or around the Christmas tree.

Last edited by TM Terry

  I can see both views as far as layout designs. I believe the biggest factor that determines the type of layout you prefer may be the type of engines and cars in your roster.  To make an operation oriented layout in a generous space you have to set your sights on diesel road switchers and Mikado or Consolidation steam locos. . A lot of hobbiests just prefer the wow factor. Especially 3 railers. Nothing wrong with that. Big Boys, Alleghenies, large articulateds and on the diesel side. ABA's. These engines require large consists to look somewhat correct. At least in my eyes. Consists of this size would just overwhelm a home layout designed for opperations. You would need large classification yard as well as long passing sidings and runarounds. I think to operate on a home layout you have to build something that resembles more of a branch line. A lot of guys are just into what I call the name trains. Elite passenger trains and large articulateds. If you prefer multiple roads and high profile trains. Multiple loops maybe the most enjoyable way to run trains.

 I love my steamers. Been working on creating more of an operations type layout. To do this I'm finding that an early diesel roster will work better. My latest purchases have been Alco RS1's and 3's. they look right with 6 to 8 car consists.

  John you mentioned Bob Bartizeks layout. I'm a huge fan. Still most of the consists are  8 to 12 car  trains. Looks good to me. Just can't picture something like a Big Boy in that scenario. 

 

Two thoughts on this posting...first I completely agree with the concepts John C. was trying to convey. Second it's almost futile to get the average model train enthusiast to subscribe to such ideas when indeed their driven on average to "get something running" followed by the inevitable pursuit of collecting everything with flanged wheels on it. The resulting layouts fill these pages, and do little to foster serious model railroading. Nevertheless a tip of my hat to John C for putting his time into trying to elevate the process beyond the usual.

Bob

necrails posted:

There was a somewhat famous author with regards to track planning who used the term "stage" as a means of running or operating trains.  The train appears from stage left or right, travels through the scene and exists stage right or left.  I have embraced that to a degree.  I have limited space so the run is a single track with a return loop at one end leading to a 3 track station/junction.  One leg goes to a return loop, the other leg climbs, passes over the single track half way back down the basement and again returns.  The basement is divided by a to the rafters mountain so there are 2 distinct scenes if you stand in one location or you can follow the train from one end to the other.  There are no yards, there was no space, there is no turntable, again space constraints.  The train appears from one end, travels through the scene, takes a path, moves on or reverses through the scene.  It is interesting, it serves a purpose and after 10 or 15 years never boring.  I agree some planning is in order, and some reading as well.

Frank Ellison---one of my model railroading heroes and a pioneer model railroader.   His "Model Railroad is an Art" theory was years before its time.  He brought it to light.  If you ever get a chance read all you can about him and John Allen. 

Miggy:  I'm not trying to cause a division or conflict.  I've wrote hundreds of times that there is room for everybody in this hobby.  I'm just trying to make others aware that there are options beyond circles and loops.  That's 99% of what you see now and historically.

When I first got 101 track plans for model railroaders back in the 1970s, the true point-to-point plans caught my eye but I didn't understand why anyone would want to lay track in that arrangement.  I ran in circles for more than twenty some odd years before I finally got it!  It is much more: actively engaging, entertaining, interesting and fun to have something to do.  That's why I believe a lot of people lose interest and drop out, because they know nothing other than circling--which many love, but it's not for everybody and vice-versa.

It evens states in that same book something to the effect of having more to do will provide you more fun and then ironically shows a multitude of spaghetti bowls, circles and loops.  That's what we have got forever--circles and loops.  Beginners aren't aware of other options.

All I'm trying to do is promote and popularize a design process whereby people become even more actively engaged with their trains which have: plausibility, purpose and participation.  And for those who simply like to watch their trains run, this can still be accomplished with the Design Process.   

And, even though my layout is a point to point, it is possible to sit back and watch a train because I have designed what I call a "continuous option" in my scheme.  That is I have reverse loops at both ends of my main line and a train may run end to end untouched.  The reason I did that so I could make operation by myself more "real."  I control one train and the other, generally a passenger train, continues to pass by.  With DCS, I may easily change my passenger train to another passenger train to keep a "fresh" train going...

I'm trying to popularize a formal model railroad process whereby everyone can gain a better understanding of why tracks are arranged in the manner that they are.

For years, the hobby has had it backwards.  Tracks are laid to fill space with no plan other than to get the trains running.  First, a person needs to decide specifically what they want to do, research, analyze, plan, test, etc...before jumping right in and wasting a bunch of money and time on something that collects dust.  Man have I seen those!

Several of my friends fathers had "dust catchers" and I couldn't understand why anyone would let a really cool train layout just sit there.  Now I understand why.  They had become bored because the train didn't go anywhere or do anything.

Yes there was no formal design process in those days either.  It was track arranging to fill a space.

#John, very well put sir, and I appreciate you, and others, that there is more to keeping it fresh. You have a great way of writing as well. On may way to understanding and creating a nice, creative, interesting layout, I am very open to sage advice. I have a "Dogbone" size area, on the carpet, to create an interesting layout with static modules with loose track to connect.

In parallel tracks with your post, please help me head in a good direction. My area is 13 x 7. 

Proctor/Duluth/Superior Minnesota/Wisconsin is know for Iron range ore and Ore Boat loading. I thought about having a MD&IR lines as theme.

thoughts? Graph paper and pencil ready.... I have Photoshop but no layout programs.... lol. and hey, Elliot, is kinda..... well, BIG_BOY!

I apprecate you guys

In a past life I had a layout building business.  If you think designing your own layout is difficult (cause' ya' know what ya' want) try designing over 90 layouts in various scales.  First question I would start the process with was what do you THINK you want?  Seriously the best layouts ended up being those where they had in fact taken the time to kinda' sketch a simple track plan and had some basic idea of what they wanted.  The most fun layouts to build were where WE did the research together.  One I especially liked was he and I gathered a lot of pictures of things he really liked and pasted them around the empty layout room.  From that we developed the plan.

I think the MODULE idea is interesting in that you can build a section at a time and later rearrange where they go to suit the final operation.  Speaking of operation it is a shame that more 3 railers don't get involved in operation because I feel that if they did their layouts would improve in many ways.  First their railroad would serve a purpose and of course it would have to function correctly.  Its a shame that well detailed trains and terrific sounds and electronics stumble around many layouts.

Good subject, thanks for bringing it up.  Russ

both. I did watch the video.. I watched the loco back the coal cars into the power station, they were emptied (by mmmagic?) I appreciate your clever (and creative) use of wall, there. I do have 2 sets of L & R switches... one set is in the mail, lol. I do appreciate you help, and ideas. I am such a small layout with zero budget (i know, right, but gotta have a couple switches and a few cars.... ya know..)

having a purpose is a learning curve (get it, curve??  lol) for me and I appreciate ya

I am attaching my  6x12 layout in SCARM along with an Excel spreadsheet of pick up and drop offs. The spreadsheet has 2 tabs. One for a train running East to West (Buffalo to NY) and the other for a train running West to East (NY to Buffalo). Each siding can hold up to 4 cars but I usually spot no more then 2-3 except for the interchange track. I also use the run around track to spot and pick up cars in West Hurley. Most of the switching is done on the inner loop. I run two trains at a time both in the same direction. When I complete the switching moves on the inner track I then need to take the train from the outer loop and move it to the inner loop. This also adds a lot of fun and interest. It's slow moving trains here. I have had a couple of minor collisions due to switches not thrown properly. Again this add interest and fun. I am still working out some details. I would like to run up to 3 tricks and at the end of the 3rd trick all cars would wind up where they started on the first trick and the cycle will start all over again. Any thought or comments on how I can improve operation would be greatly appreciated. 

Attachments

Joeceleb posted:

I am attaching my  6x12 layout in SCARM along with an Excel spreadsheet of pick up and drop offs. The spreadsheet has 2 tabs. One for a train running East to West (Buffalo to NY) and the other for a train running West to East (NY to Buffalo). Each siding can hold up to 4 cars but I usually spot no more then 2-3 except for the interchange track. I also use the run around track to spot and pick up cars in West Hurley. Most of the switching is done on the inner loop. I run two trains at a time both in the same direction. When I complete the switching moves on the inner track I then need to take the train from the outer loop and move it to the inner loop. This also adds a lot of fun and interest. It's slow moving trains here. I have had a couple of minor collisions due to switches not thrown properly. Again this add interest and fun. I am still working out some details. I would like to run up to 3 tricks and at the end of the 3rd trick all cars would wind up where they started on the first trick and the cycle will start all over again. Any thought or comments on how I can improve operation would be greatly appreciated. 

Joe:  Your files won't open for me.  Can you JPEG and attach as a picture?

thanks for sharing. "I Like it!" as I look online for more switches.... oh, and straights, oh, look, theres a handsome Menards Tanker.

#Joeceleb (question, for basics please. With the Timetables, please build a story about your layout) ( oh wait, The Timetables Tells the Story )

don't mind me, I am learning...  . thanks for sharing, it helps me out

Add Reply

Post
The Track Planning and Layout Design Forum is sponsored by

AN OGR FORUM CHARTER SPONSOR
×
×
×
×
Link copied to your clipboard.
×
×