How Much Computer-Based Planning is Necessary for a Good Layout?

If it works for you, then you chose the correct tool.   Format wars are silly.  Desktop PC's vs. tablets vs. phones?  Everyone gets to use what they like.

Hey Don. Sounds like you have it all figured out. Congratulations and keep going. For me, I was a draftsman my whole life and making drawings manually or with CAD was what I did. I designed my new layout using my CAD program at work. You can see my finished product if you have RUN 313 of the magazine.

To me, I think a lot of folks get too involved with using the computer programs (me included). If you already have a printed plan and a table top, then just start laying down the track and see where it goes.

Donald

I used ANYRAIL software to create my two-level L-shaped layout. That product met my needs and exceeded my expectations.  Its learning curve wasn't complicated. I'm a "keep tinkering" type of layout designer/builder, so making and re-making and re-re-making a layout plan is my way of doing it.  After the track plan was "finished" and track laid on the platforms, I made a few minor improvements manually. All part of the fun!

Like you, I believe the process is as important as the end product. Since you are comfortable with your chosen method, it is "right for you" - which is what matters most.  Carry on ...

Mike Mottler     LCCA 12394

Most larger  layouts in service today on the scale side in HO and O were started before anyone used computer software (CAD) to design them.   Most are very successful and host operating sessions regularly.    So I think the answer is, no computer planning is necessary to have a good layout.    But Planning of some sort is necessary to save you headaches and reconstruction down the road.   I did a lot of sketching and some scale drawings when building mine.    I also used John Armstrongs technique of laying out the area in blocks the size of your circles, to help you quickle to sketch a mainline idea that would fit or not.

@prrjim posted:

Most larger  layouts in service today on the scale side in HO and O were started before anyone used computer software (CAD) to design them.   Most are very successful and host operating sessions regularly.    So I think the answer is, no computer planning is necessary to have a good layout.    But Planning of some sort is necessary to save you headaches and reconstruction down the road.   I did a lot of sketching and some scale drawings when building mine.    I also used John Armstrongs technique of laying out the area in blocks the size of your circles, to help you quickle to sketch a mainline idea that would fit or not.

This was my first thought as well...

Mark in Oregon

The computer makes change easier once you have the knack of the software in use.   Always consider some leeway. Though they are usually pretty accurate (they have to build ho, N, and even Z too), but they aren't 100% foolproof either, be it mfg tolorance on it's edge, grade vs flat measuring or grabbing a wrong brand/size of track from the library there can be some variation and hic-ups from plan to real life. 

  I spent many nights 30 years ago staring at track and turnouts looking at pluses and minuses of what I was doing. I’d leave it there a bit before committing to it. I’m still working on the same layout. You have a given space.usually with compromises. As much as you dream of all the things you would like to incorporate into the layout. It may look great on paper. But when the benchwork goes up. All of a sudden reality sets in. It’s not as big as it looks on paper. Pick out your few must haves and make sure you incorporate them. The only thing I’d settle on in planning is your minimum and maximum curve size. Decide where the benchwork is going to go to get an idea of what you can reach and where your aisles are going to be. Where duckunders if used would be located. Build the benchwork to best fit the space.

 Step back and envision trains running and how it will look. The plan will come to you. Then do what your doing now and layout some track and see how it looks.  Computer track plans will tell you what will fit in a given space. A lot seem to put to much track in a given space because there’s room for it. Leaving no room for scenery or structures. By all means purchase and build your must have structures while your tinkering with the layout plan. Or substitute some cardboard mock ups to help visualize the layout better.

I'm quite young enough to feel comfortable with computers, but for something you only plan to do a couple of times in your life, it doesn't make sense (to me) to invest the time getting good at using the software. Sort of like getting a pilot's license rather than just buying a plane ticket. I planned my own layout using Armstrong's methods, and it worked out well. It's a small layout, so I was able to make a full-size plan once I finalized my scale drawing. It was gratifying how well everything turned out when I scaled it up. And, if anything, there is less margin for error in a small layout than a large one.

Consider the design of complex engineering systems such as steam and diesel locomotives, internal combustion engines, airliners, automobiles, and suspension bridges. Until relatively recently, these things were designed and built without computers. And they are much more complex than most model railroads. So, in my opinion, it is not necessary to use computer-aided-design or simulation to build a model railroad. You can use it if you prefer, but it's not the only way to get it done. I say this as a retired engineer who has been using computers for almost sixty years...

MELGAR

AnyRail is easy to use.  They have on line manuals you can down load to your PC.  Took me about two weeks to learn.  I also tried RR program and found it a beast to learn and does not work as well as AnyRail program.

At the time I did this design with available free software.  The material list generated, as part of the design, allowed for a purchase, with little/no extra left over track parts. 

When I designed and built my layout I had NO computer. All design work done in my head.  Used the bottom of the packages that the GG switches came in to make tinplates for the switches. 

Whoa...after I posted my question, I thought "sheesh--you just posted the most boring question in OGR Forum history!" and I wasn't expecting to hear much back. So thanks to all for your time and helpful replies. It sounds like it can go well without the computer--it sure is for many of you. And for those of us going the paper and pencil route, well we stand on the shoulders of giants--another salute to Armstrong and Westcott and Delta Lines. Even Lionel has published an under-appreciated collection of layout plans and building guides. 

MikeCT, I LOVE that structures set in your pic--my lord that must've taken some time. Was that a kit?

3rail, I really enjoyed seeing your work in Run 313. It was one of relatively few articles that I read through several times.

I have no whole house air. So I am at my ex-wife's house (guess who got the money?). Luckily we get along better now than when we were married. But the upshot is that I am limited to building kits during the heat wave. I am currently working on an OLD Russ Briggs Freight Terminal kit and putting the TMCC upgrade kit into a Rail King GG1--I've had that project sitting around for a LONG time.

Thanks again everyone! Lord, I LOVE THIS FORUM!

Don

"MikeCT, I LOVE that structures set in your pic--my lord that must've taken some time. Was that a kit?"

 Cabin Creek Coal Tipple.  Slope/hillside detail is not part of the kit.  

None.

Not a bit!  A piece of paper, a pencil and a desire to play with YOUR trains is all that is needed.  You may delete the pad of paper and pencil.  Lionel was built on sales to families who played with trains. Look at how many eight and nine year old children got hours of enjoyment out of running trains under the Christmas tree and then on the living room rug for a week or so after the tree was tossed.  Let's not get too serious about toys.  What is a "GOOD" layout?  If it is a serious hobby, you can spend a year preparing the room, then years on the layout.  That is also great.  It is YOURS, do what you want to meet your standards.  Accept nothing less.   John

You can still get it done with graph paper and a plastic track planning template, but the more complex layouts may need some assist.

Full size templates can still be made with brown craft paper or cardboard. That's how I made my last layout, but that was only 4' x 8'.

I agree that design with a computer program is not a necessity.  But it helps a lot.  I like to try different configurations and work on "perfecting" the curves.  It also make determining grades and vertical clearance, which saves time.  I use AnyRail which I find easy to use, and add features to the layout plan like buildings and scenery.

Once I bought RR-Track and learned it (not that hard for the basics) I never again thought about pencil and paper.  Here is just the engine and freight yard areas for the layout I'm building.  Probably have 3 dozen or more tries at this saved (most were minor changes but I did not want to lose what I had done in case I wanted to go back to it).  Not sure I could have got all this in that space without RR-Track or some other computer program

Just getting these switches correctly aligned to maintain 4.5 inches C-C took a few tries.  The circles at the track connections define one end of a block, which was very useful to me as I have a lot of blocks, some switched and some not switched.

@prrjim posted:

  So I think the answer is, no computer planning is necessary to have a good layout.    But Planning of some sort is necessary to save you headaches and reconstruction down the road.

True and true.  And, no matter what you do, be prepared to make changes.

Don,

Is that a trick question?    

Obviously, you don't need a computer and track planning software to build a model railroad.  And there are a few discrepancies between the plans produced by software and the results achieved by playing w/ real track.

But as someone who has planned and built layouts using RR-Track, I can tell you that trying some design out on the computer is far less time consuming and less expensive than building and tearing down physical components.  And for most of us, time is not in endless supply.  Buying new switches and track and then selling them off at a loss when they don't fit is not a winning formula. 

All that said, it's what you are comfortable with that matters. 

George

Don,

I purchased CADRail back in the mid '90s not long after I first got a computer.  I was a latecomer to computers especially considering I had been an electronics technician since 1976.  It was a bear to learn, and I gave up.  I'm sure it is many, many times better now.  I designed on graph paper after that.  Back in January 2017, I requested help from Forum members in designing my new layout.  I received many great ideas and suggestions from many people.  DoubleDAZ Dave started posting designs using SCARM.  I finally learned a little about SCARM but, but he basically did the design for me as I would mention different changes.  I still struggle with doing some simple things with it.  If it hadn't been for help here, I would have designed the layout with graph paper, pencil, and fitting track sections together.  I have been retired since October 28th of last year, and have made progress building the layout.  The plan Dave made for me came in handy, especially the 1:1 scale printout.  I too have trouble with vertical design.  I can sort of picture something in my mind, but getting it built is another story.

I am like you, what I think would be a boring topic here, attracts a lot of input.  There are so many like minded people here, I don't think any train related topic would be boring to a lot of folks here.

Possibly a different spin

I have spent over 30 years in Network / Security / Data Center operations so for me when I got back into the hobby I also wanted to unplug  and getaway from the computer.   I did use concepts I learned by viewing computer plans on here (thank you everyone) and also reworked sections more than once but for me it was kind of therapy and downtime away from the daily grind.  Ironic I know but part of the fun was building my layout making mistakes and resolving them.  I have a 12 x 16 layout and am happy with it.  Could it be better certainly but I have the flexibility I wanted: a modest yard, some switching some industry but also can just sit back and enjoy trains passing each other with my beverage of choice.  

You don't "need" a computer, but I honestly believe that in the long run, designing and even testing your layout with software will save you time and money.  Because I like computers better than carpentry, measure twice cut once, etc., I am personally using a computer-based approach.

I've never tried Anyrail, but I used RR-Track for years, I found it easy enough to use.  I like switching.  I wanted a layout that would accommodate up to 3 trains, and keep 2-4 people busy.  I designed a couple of blockbuster plans.  But in putting the finishing touches on them, I needed to experiment to find the ideal placement and orientation of cross-overs between mainlines.  Then I saw some references to SCARM on the Forum.  I prefer the looks of its 3D renderings, AND it has an extra cost add-on where you can "playtest."  Yes, you can actually "run" up to 3 trains on the layouts you design, switch cars, etc.  When I showed this to one of my friends, they said "If you can do all this in the program, I wouldn't even bother building a layout!"  The only things I dislike about SCARM are, it's hard to make smooth mountains; and unlike RR-Track, there are no object "libraries" for Plasticville buildings or accessories.  You have to note the dimensions and approximate them up by creating generic cubes or rectangles.  The program and its add-ons are well worth the modest cost IMO.

There are some things that are hard to tell exclusively from software; you might need to mock them up in the room.  For example, the width of the aisles, the height of the benchwork, location of key controls, and other "human factors."  But for planning the framing, benchwork, track layout, list of switches and track pieces needed, IMO using track design software spares you a lot of trial-and-error.  My $.02, YMMV.

I agree that if you have built the tables, you can just start laying out the track on the tables (But if not, see my last paragraph)  You can make full size templates for the switches and you can use a straight edge and trammel for the Gargraves. I would begin by deciding what my minimum radius is and how many independent loops I want and lay those out. There are only so many ways to do that and your table config will determine that. Decide if you want a passing siding or reverse loop and use the switch templates to figure out where that will go. Then any yards you want, which are pretty easy to figure out with the switch templates.

The most important planning is not the track layout, but the givens and druthers. Are you a looper or a point to point guy? Double track or single? What kind of equipment will you run and what is its radius? How much switching and what industries do you want? How big is their footprint? Do you want a turntable or engine facilities? What sort of terrain details? Multiple levels, independent or with grades? Those druthers with your layout foot print will determine the track plan. You find there are not a lot of options one you narrow down what you want and try to fit it in the space and footprint you have.

That said, 48" wide tables will seriously limit your minimum radius. And the 24" center aisle with posts sounds very tight. What track planning software will really help with is determining if your layout footprint works with what you want and need before you build the benchwork. Track can be changed a lot easier than carpentry work. So if you haven't built the benchwork, track software yes. If you already have, not necessary.

Another thought. Computer software is most useful if you have the experience with actual track work to understand what you are looking at. Spacing and distances in a small scale render are deceptive and I thing computer software tempts people to jam in too much track and they end up taking some out when they build. Laying out actual track helps you judge the space. I would have some structures around and place them as you design ( if you design on the layout) to get a sense of the space and how thing will look.

Dont know about some people waiting on getting a RR modeler planning software, but I am barely 2 hours into using AnyRail....its great! Took the advice of a few Forumites stories....thanks!

I recommend that you get a designated space for your layout. Leave room for possible expansions. The disease gets worse as you get more trains lol. Once you have that I like to use paper and pencil to sketch things out. Once you have an idea of what you want, try SCARM. It is free to download. It makes designing a layout easier and you know exactly what you need, where it will go, etc... I believe that planning is very important. Hope this helps.

Ricky 

I just wanted two tracks that ran around my 6x8 table the my wife got involved....she designed some of our favorite restaurants, buildings and now we have lights on everything and three tracks. Still no plans at all just having fun. Attachment movie at night

I've had two layouts built for me and one I built myself.  The one I built myself I got from a layout book, and I modified it slightly, and that was back in the late 1990s.  I should explain that my house was built in 1898 and I was told do as you wish.  What I discovered that while I could copy the image from the book to my cut-up 4x8 tabletops, my ability to lay track left a lot to be desired. Connected straight sections were not really that straight.

I then subscribed to OGR and CTT, and learned that there were people that built layouts for a living, and one lived fairly close to me.  Layouts by Cardiff (Dave) came to my house and took measurements for the area of the basement where the layout would be, and then Don, his dad created a plan for me.  It was built at their shop and I went and saw it being built.  I was mesmerized.  When it arrived, I was even more blown away.  It looked amazing.  After that we added 2 additions to it but those were drawn by hand.

In 2004, I moved to my new house which was 99% built before I bought it, and was about 1/4 mile away from the existing house.  Old layout was dismantled and moved down the street.  I had a vision of what I wanted my new layout to be and wanted to try and worked with Dave and Don to try and achieve that.  Don drew up an elaborate plan that incorporated the space, but missed the mark of what I wanted to achieve (but didn't effectively communicate).  Dave and I drew something on a spiral notebook that was much more to my liking.

I made a video of my layout last week prior to running the trains.  https://youtu.be/vcemh0Qbiq0  Because of the various rooms, I am not sure I could have used a track planning system.  The key to me was being able to draw something and then build from there and the use of flex track.

John

For less than $3 you can get a compass and a protractor at Walmart - and with optional engineering graph paper you can design a great layout. The graph paper makes it easier to draw to scale, but any paper would do.

Three reasons to use layout planning software instead of pencil and paper:

1.  You can envision lots of interesting layouts easily and reuse sections of previous work to create the design faster.

2.  You get to try fit of track pieces without having to buy it.

3.  You can get an inventory of the track you need for the layout.

With track that does not include rigid roadbed, there is enough flex and cutting/trimming to make things fit.  With FasTrack and all of the small fitting pieces, using software is almost essential to getting the design to snap together.

Some of the most interesting threads recently have been on a proposed layout design and evolving the design with comments by forum members.  The ability to post the layout design from software facilitates this exchange of ideas.

@Tracker John posted:

Three reasons to use layout planning software instead of pencil and paper:

1.  You can envision lots of interesting layouts easily and reuse sections of previous work to create the design faster.

2.  You get to try fit of track pieces without having to buy it.

3.  You can get an inventory of the track you need for the layout.

With track that does not include rigid roadbed, there is enough flex and cutting/trimming to make things fit.  With FasTrack and all of the small fitting pieces, using software is almost essential to getting the design to snap together.

Some of the most interesting threads recently have been on a proposed layout design and evolving the design with comments by forum members.  The ability to post the layout design from software facilitates this exchange of ideas.

This is all so true! I read those threads so I know that I lost A LOT by not being able to have one of my own! But with me and the way my mind works (or doesn't!), I just felt like I was headed into a phase of paralysis by analysis. I had the benchwork up, the platform down and cut to fit the space. I decided on Gargraves and DCS and was accumulating everything I thought I needed. So my basement is now full of platform and my shelves are bulging with track, cork, turnouts and structures. So...let me think....should I start spreading the track around in likely patterns for a yard, engine terminal and scenic byways--while browsing Track Planning for Realistic Operation? Or should I sit down in front of my PC for a couple weeks?

My decision was to put an old TV surround sound system under the layout and play background CDs of trains in operation (from Green Frog) while I laid track. I laid the yard first figuring it would anchor the rest. I figured out where the 26 inch used Bowser turntable HAD to go (because it didn't fit ANYWHERE else) and installed it. Since then, it has been a complicated exercise in connecting the dots!

I'll pass along some pix when I have anything I can show without cringing.

Thanks everyone! 

Don Merz

In my opinion,  short answer: no. 

Two points. 

1.-  In the basement with the obstructions you are describing my suggestion is to contact an experienced layout contractor and commission a plan only.  Trust me on this, the average person sees the obstructions, an experienced layout builder sees the possibilities.

2.-  Please refrain from abandoning  your first target, around the wall.   It is hard to find any operational benefit of an island layout over an around the wall railroad.  An island layout immediately constricts curve size, by concept it requires 180 degree or more of curvature.  Usually creates dead space within the circles, frequently has either small curves or a long reach obstruction,  common problem=crawl under access holes, the straights are shorter requiring a more flexible imagination, long trains can seem dominating / over powering, etc.,etc., etc.  The engine winds up chasing the caboose. 

As a former layout builder I would draw up plans only to show a client what I proposed.  Layout builders think in 3 dimensions and can walk into a room and envision your givens and druthers as a done deal in a short time.  We know what will fit, grade requirement, pleasing finished appearance.

If you wind up with an island layout you may consider it a learning devise for your next layout.  Just opinion.

@Don Merz 070317 posted:

This is all so true! I read those threads so I know that I lost A LOT by not being able to have one of my own! But with me and the way my mind works (or doesn't!), I just felt like I was headed into a phase of paralysis by analysis. I had the benchwork up, the platform down and cut to fit the space. I decided on Gargraves and DCS and was accumulating everything I thought I needed. So my basement is now full of platform and my shelves are bulging with track, cork, turnouts and structures. So...let me think....should I start spreading the track around in likely patterns for a yard, engine terminal and scenic byways--while browsing Track Planning for Realistic Operation? Or should I sit down in front of my PC for a couple weeks?

My decision was to put an old TV surround sound system under the layout and play background CDs of trains in operation (from Green Frog) while I laid track. I laid the yard first figuring it would anchor the rest. I figured out where the 26 inch used Bowser turntable HAD to go (because it didn't fit ANYWHERE else) and installed it. Since then, it has been a complicated exercise in connecting the dots!

I'll pass along some pix when I have anything I can show without cringing.

Thanks everyone! 

Don Merz

Don, that is exactly why I refrain from showing photographs of what I am doing at certain spells. I've built about a half dozen layouts since the late '60s, and each has its own struggles! 

@Tom Tee posted:

In my opinion,  short answer: no. 

Two points. 

1.-  In the basement with the obstructions you are describing my suggestion is to contact an experienced layout contractor and commission a plan only.  Trust me on this, the average person sees the obstructions, an experienced layout builder sees the possibilities.

2.-  Please refrain from abandoning  your first target, around the wall.   It is hard to find any operational benefit of an island layout over an around the wall railroad.  An island layout immediately constricts curve size, by concept it requires 180 degree or more of curvature.  Usually creates dead space within the circles, frequently has either small curves or a long reach obstruction,  common problem=crawl under access holes, the straights are shorter requiring a more flexible imagination, long trains can seem dominating / over powering, etc.,etc., etc.  The engine winds up chasing the caboose. 

As a former layout builder I would draw up plans only to show a client what I proposed.  Layout builders think in 3 dimensions and can walk into a room and envision your givens and druthers as a done deal in a short time.  We know what will fit, grade requirement, pleasing finished appearance.

If you wind up with an island layout you may consider it a learning devise for your next layout.  Just opinion.

WAY WAY WAY too late Tom Tee. I appreciate your thoughtful reply. The island layout is up. I am ABSOLUTELY committed to what I've got going on here. I have the utmost respect for the artistic layout contractors whose work you see in OGR and CTT all the time.  I fell in love with a couple of their layouts. But for me, this is a HOBBY. I want to build with my own mind and hands. I want to face problems and defeat them using my wits and skills. Sitting in the living room with a contractor drinking beer while looking at blueprints just isn't what I signed up for.

And yet.....the level of craftsmanship and artistic skill seen on the contractors' web sites is nothing short of eye-popping. But I'm afraid they've gotten all the cash they're going to get out of me--zero.

Don Merz

@Don Merz 070317 posted:

 But for me, this is a HOBBY. I want to build with my own mind and hands. I want to face problems and defeat them using my wits and skills. Sitting in the living room with a contractor drinking beer while looking at blueprints just isn't what I signed up for.

 

 

Will, I wrote a poor description...each arm of the U shaped island is 8 feet wide--96" So I can accomodate 072 at the ends of the arms. But by the time you start bending A to meet B at the yard ends or elsewhat, then I m down TO 054.

dON