I'm surprised not to find an answer to the question of which comes first in planning, or it may just be a failure in my research. Anyway, I'm at a place where I need to know. I'm partial to terrain heavy scenery, i.e. Mountains, canyons, waterways, and suchlike, obviously involving tunnels, bridges, over & unders, etc. So should I execute such topography first, then plan the track around it? Or how...? I'm talking freestyle here. And BTW, are there any detailed scenery plans out there for such a layout (I haven't yet settled on a total size, but it's going to be somewhere in the range of 60 to 100 Sq.Ft.). I suspect that for my purpose the (topographical) scenery would come first, then the track plan and the structures. After all, that's how it works in the real world. Am I right?
One thing I have seen mentioned a lot is 'What do you want?' Ok, so you want lots of scenery, awesome! N-scale is great for that and there have been a lot of great layouts that incorporate mountains. To answer your question, the track does need to come first Cosmic. Its the only way to ensure that all the joints, grades, turnouts, and electrical conduction works. Once that is done, then you can go crazy building your mountains, rivers, lakes, forests, waterfalls and canyons. You can plan around what you want with some sketching out your ideas on paper first. Put the mountains canyons and track where you want. And since its freelance, you have very little restrictions. Which is fun! Kinda like my Carnage, Maudlin & Balderdash Railroad! I don't mean to sound like a jerk, but I thought about scenery first once, until I worked things out in my head. And Boxcab is right, it is better to ask this question with all the layout experts... I hope this helps. Sent from my Commando
I'd suggest you get a better idea of what you really want. You may not actually "know" what you want at this point, but there are parts of your brain where the "good images" are stored. John Armstrong (a well-known and respected professional layout designer) would give his customers a chore to do before he'd even start designing a layout. This chore consisted of filling out a list that was titled "Givens and Druthers" which was a list (helped along with some questions John would give them) of what they wanted in their model railroad, and what they "saw" in their mind about it. Then, he'd design the model railroad using this list to please his customers, and he'd use his own experience and preferences to make it a good (sometimes GREAT) design. So Cosmic, even though it "works" that way in the "real world" with topography being there first, there are too many constraints in model railroading for that to be the actuality most of the time for our layouts. Since you are thinking of a "freelanced" model railroad, you've stated that you already have some preferences as far as topography goes..."heavy" being the operative word, which I think means lots of BIG scenery, dwarfing (as much as possible) your model trains. So, I'm going to suggest to you that you sit down one day or evening soon, with some music playing that you like, maybe a cold beer in hand, close your eyes and write down what you see in your head when you think of the model railroad you want. I mean...get specific about such things as the type of terrain you're seeing, what the colors are, diesels or steam (or both), lots of deciduous trees or lots of rocky cliffs with a few conifers, do the bridges cross major rivers, or rivers that are 100' or less wide, are they spanning deep gorges or are the tracks only a dozen feet or so above the surface of the water? Do you want your layout to look "real" or are you happy with mixing terrains just like you're happy with inventing the roads that run on it? Does your scenery look like western or eastern mountains, are there a lot of small villages with company houses, or are your trains running through scenery that only has railroad associated structures visible? Do you see double track mainlines or single track? Do you see passenger trains or freights...or both? Do you see big freights highballing through superelevated curves or do you see small diesels pulling little trains, stopping at industries and dropping off and picking up cars? You gettin' the picture? If you write down what you see in your head, then go online and look for terrain that railroads run through now, or in the past, then you'll start getting a much better idea of what you want in your layout. Remember, real railroads ran as much as they possibly could through the easiest terrain in the area, usually at near water level, taking advantage of rivers having already cut through the most difficult terrain, but much spectacular scenery is associated with canyons and the associated "big" terrain...but real railroads generally ran through these features because they needed to get to the more mundane areas where the towns and cities were...where they made their money. One distinct possibility is to select prototype scenes from several different real railroads and incorporate their track plans (as well as can be done in N-scale and the space you have) and build your layout with several different Layout Design Elements (LDE's) so that although you're modeling prototype topography and trackage, you're not sticking with any specific prototype. The only problem with that might be that one railroad is running two track mainlines through the scene you like, and another scene from another railroad is of a single track mainline. Also, when you get into it, the color and style of the structures you see in photos is going to vary a lot from railroad to railroad, from east to west, north to south. You need to settle on what architecture you like or develop your own for such things are signals, stations, tunnel portals, types of bridges, color of ballast, concrete or wooden ties...the list goes on and on. This is both the curse and joy of model railroading. You can completely immerse yourself in many aspects of it to the point you completely ignore other important and fun aspects. However, as we go along, we develop preferences usually, and they have a tendency to change as our experience accumulates until we get "settled". When I first got serious about it, I really didn't know exactly what I wanted, but now....I know EXACTLY what I want, and all my model railroading efforts point to that end goal. So, instead of starting out inventing the topography, start out by deciding what you like more specifically than you have...then, look for prototype photos of trains running through topography that you like. Since you're going to freelance it, you don't have to make that scene UP or Pennsy or any other railroad...you can put whatever engine or road on it that you want, but because you're modeling the terrain in relation to the track from a real railroad somewhere, it's going to look more convincing than if you just nail track on a piece of plywood...even though that will get trains running quicker! Have fun whatever you do... Cheerio! Bob Gilmore
I planned mine together. I'm modeling a prototype, so I already knew what sections would need to be flat, which would be on hillsides or in valleys...then my plan evolved to fit the benchwork, and the benchwork evolved to fit the plan. Nothing was fully complete first. I started with a vague idea and it took me several months to refine the concept to something workable (using sketches and CAD planning) before an actual trackplan could be developed.
Bob, let me begin by saying that I truly respect your passion (permit me to use that term) about doing it right. It may be useful for you to know a bit more about where I'm at with this interest. I'm not a "conceiver", I'm an "executor". I suppose that to some that would make me a dilettante, and so be it. If I could find a treatise that would fully describe a layout that would suit my fancy I would be pleased to build it, ideally entirely from scratch. That is my forte, and my interest. What is fascinating to many, perhaps including yourself, is more to me like the drudgery to be gotten through before the fun begins. In my years of ship modeling I have always worked from the designs of others. If I could afford a consultant that would completely design a layout in accordance with the brief description I have given I would happily spend years bringing it to perfect life. I have Armstrong's track planning book, and I've been studying it, also the operations tutorial by Cochrun & Sparks. These, for me, have been in the nature of chores to be completed preparatory to getting on with the joyful stuff. But if I had to sweat & struggle through all of the baloney (forgive me!) you describe, it would ruin it for me. I don't need to know "exactly" what I want. I don't need not to make mistakes; I fully expect to make more than a few. I don't intend to nail track on a piece plywood, and I don't care about getting trains running quickly. What I want is to use my hands, (heart, & soul) and tools to make something beautiful in accordance with my own sensibility, and if/when it's ever completed it will be just fine if someone else operates it. Please don't get me wrong, I want very much for the final result to be excellent. It's just that what's most important to me is the process. Hope you understand.
My Opinion? Design the track plan first. Adjust the scenery around it. Lay the track. Do the wiring. Add the scenery. Plan on redesign in a year or two. Why? I infer from your question that this is your first layout. Until you have desinged and built one at least part way it just is not going to be what you want. My lahyout, "The Grey and Grandure" is in its 6th iteration. Arrrrrrg!
Depends on a couple of factors. First, size. Smaller layouts by their nature place constraints on the possible track routes. Which means you may not have the luxury of planning the track route around the topography. As the layout size increases, so do your options, so it's not an either/or situation, but rather a sliding scale. Second, experience. Mountains and canyons and rivers and such, while popular among beginners, may be too much of a challenge as a starting point. Best to cut your teeth on something less dramatic. However, knowing your "stubbornness" on this point (insert big wink here), you will likely insist on cutting right to the chase and going for the high drama. Either way, developing a successful track plan requires experience; this is not something where you can step up to the plate, without ever having picked up a bat, and hit a home run.
Some people find that building a scaled down mock-up of the layout helps with the planning process. Creating a 3D model might help you to visualize the scenery you're trying to create and devise routes for the tracks that will traverse it. Better to refine your design in miniature before proceding to the actual construction - plus it might help relieve the urge to start building something right away. Also, you might find that you will derive more lasting satisfaction from your efforts by developing the plan yourself, rather than constructing a layout for which someone else was the architect.
Now here's a plan I like a lot. Not that I understand most of the notation, nor in many places which track is on which level, but the photos in the accompanying article (which I'll supply if there's interest) tell me it's the sort of thing I've had in mind. I have some small objections, like the shortness of the bridges, but I would happily dive into this and fix my problems with it on the way. It came out of Russ Larson's N Scale Model Railroading and it's the Union Pacific Northern by Jim Whitehead. It operates on 3 levels. I like the topography and that there's lots of trackside industry/business. All criticisms welcomed, just PLEASE don't beat a dead horse by telling me it's too much for me. I know it is, and I don't care. Question: To whom might I go to get this drawn up into a track plan? Another question: So far as I can figure out, it looks as though there's a LOT of backing into sidings. Am I missing something? (Hope this constitutes fair use and I'm not violating copyright. I'm attributing it properly, and gratefully.)
I remember when that layout was in MR. I thought it was pretty well done...would be interesting if you could find the gent that built in and contact him for suggestions. I don't have anything to add...you seem pretty insistent on making all the mistakes instead of just new ones, but it will certainly be a great learning experience. Probably beats the alternative of a planner like me that takes forever to get much done. ;-) (it's all about finite amounts of money, from my perspective. Sucks.)
Hmmm, makes me wonder: should I use Romano or Parmesan cheese on the sauce? This is to say what we have here is a classic bowl of spaghetti, filled to overflowing, and not at all appealing to my palate; indeed, it's kind of revolting. But, that's just me. Um, Jim Whitehead did all the work for you. Have at it! I don't know; I may be missing the point of this question...
Interesting layout for sure. Looks like there's possibly some serious reach issues in some places. I hope there's some lift out access panels in the deep spots.
