I've noticed in a lot of pictures a benifit to having multiple levels of track is capturing more than one train in a scene. When designing, do you concider how it will photograph, or just later photograph what you have?
When my layout had grades to other levels, I did not consider photography, as the position of the tracks was mandated to a great degree as to what would fit where. But usually multiple levels do offer some good photographic opportunities.
Like Alan, my layout plan includes multiple levels based on maximizing available space. In fact, I hope to be able to separate the areas in a way that both aren't visible for photography, although I'm sure I will take some dual-level shots for the fun of it. On that note, I have a question for Alan. I realize your layout is no longer around, but do you know what the track centerline spacing was from one level to another? In other words, the distance from the track centerline where the Santa Fe locomotive compared to the track centerline under the SOO diesel. I have an almost identical setup on my layout plan and I want to make sure I have enough clearance but no more than necessary. If I recall, I think I allowed 2" between centerlines, where normally I would allow 1 1/8" between standard double track mainline.
I designed my layout without regard for how it would photograph; then later, figured out where the photo spots were. Albeit, it's good idea to consider the scenery as an important aspect of the initial design that will dictate the level of scenic realism that's possible. By definition, layouts with a highly dense track to scenery ratio present much greater scenic realism challenges. In my case, I like lots of scenery with the train 'snaking thru' the scenery, so I purposesly designed a relatively low % of space for track with a relatively high proportion of scenery - which makes realistic photographic choices easier. So to in a sense, I guess I designed my little two modules with the idea for scenic and photographic. My 2 cents worth.
I never really gave it a thought when I designed the layout but I do agree that multi level shots can add excellent photographic opportunities. Here are a couple from my layout
Can't say I ever measured it, Doug. I just allowed a reasonable gap beside the track where the Santa Fe locomotive is and the wall, and a bit at the side of the upper track so it did not look too close to the edge! I guess it was the usual spacing, plus extra for the wall thickness and a bit of clearance.
Yes, I considered photography when designing the new layout. I had too many "vertical walls" on the old layout, which I could disguise with camera angles, like this: I have one such wall on the new layout. I couldn't avoid it, as I had to climb to a third deck. But that's just 20 feet out of 300, so I could live with it, in the space I had. And I'll be able to disguise this too. Pete
Oh yes, I always have the camera in mind when developing a new layout, here's a photo from my old layout. Paul
John; What radius curves did you use on your layout? I have roughly the same space as you and I'd like to run passenger cars without them looking silly.
something that I feel works well is long S curves. I know a lot of modellers dont like the use of S curves but I feel it adds to the layout especially for photgraphy Although looking at Paul Templars photo you cant go past detail to make an excellent photograph. I guess Pauls layout is the benchmark though and gives us all something to strive towards.
Well after posting the last shots this topic motivated to take a few more pics. Below are two pics taken at different angles, it goes to show how it can change the whole perspective of how the layout looks.
Paul, I agree! One of the things I would like to do with my WP Feather River layout is to have the graceful curves that are so photogenic in the canyon. If you've ever seen a photo of Pulga, you'll know what I mean!
Paul T, Glad to see you back here posting pics. You layout and pics are so distinct, I never have to look at the author's signature. As always, looking great.
