OK, this was rattling around in my brain, so I thought I'd spit it out. This is a discussion, not an argument, the statement I made is not intended to be a position which I defend against all, but rather a comment to spark debate. Anyway, I've found that nearly every model railroad I see has too much track on it. Selective compression combined with switching desires combine to make the Track and Trains dominate the scene rather than the other way around is they would in real life. For example, Take a Trip to Barstow Ca. The Massive SF yard, hump and all is impressive, but it is dwarfed by the unforgiving hills of the mojave desert. I've seen some layouts that let the scenery dominate, but they are few and far between. Of course some people intentionally have switching oriented layouts, some people prefer operations and barely have scenery, but I'm talking about the ill defined yet massive middle of the road modelers. Cut back on the tracks dude. Tell a story of the place and time your modelling, even if it's ficticous. What do others think?
What does this mean? http://translate.google.com?too much track I can't seem to make out the language. But honestly, I keep looking at my track plans and wonder if I'm creating a spaghetti bowl. The answer is probably yes, but I want it all! It is after all a model railroad, and model railroads work best with lots of model railroad track.:tb-rolleyes:
YoHo; You're certainly entitled to your opinion. But this is a matter of personal taste. If your criteria what is is "prototypical" then then you certainly have a case. But if you're trying to tell people that they can't enjoy their layouts if they have what is in your opinion too much track, then as one member here says in his signature, "Keep your counting to your own damn rivets." The point of model railroads is to have fun. Who are any of us to try and spoil someone else's fun with our personal opinions?
Maybe in Z or N scales it's possible to model a large scenery to track ratio but most of us are model railroaders not model sceneryroaders so we naturally emphasize the trains. I do think many layouts have too much track running in unrealistic scenarios. Lots of track can be used to advantage in areas where the prototype would have lots of track but that takes some planning experience and discipline that many modelers lack. The wedding cake stacked tier routes are common and a pain in the eye to look at, also tracks on bridges crossing over yards or cities in weird directions are scene spoilers, or small mountains that look like their only purpose is so the layout can have a tunnel!! Since I'm a surveyor I'm probably more aware than many modelers are of the topographical errors of a layout . For instance if a prototype mainline curves there was probably a reason for the curve so any spurs would probably curve too, but more often modelers build straight spurs off of curved mainlines? Personally I hate to detail scenery for scenery's sake so will never have large areas of just scenery but I would like some large industrial switching areas and a decent sized yard. I'll probably let the backdrops take care of most of the non operating involved scenery.....dave
Ease up guys, I think YoHo was making a valid comment. If you'd read his entire thread, you'd see that he was just making a comment and not trying to provoke dissension. I too have seen layouts with track covering every spare inch of plywood. On the other hand, I have seen layouts where there is a nice blending of scenery and trackwork with the emphasis on keeping things prototypical. Most of us are diplomatic enough not to say anything when we see a layout built in what we would consider "not prototypical" or whatever. As Lownen points out, it is after all someone else's layout and as long as they are having fun.... that's OK. One of the big advantages of the Internet and forums like this is that we get exposed to a lot of different ideas. I have seen a steady improvement in layouts lately and most of the layouts built in the last ten or so years have avoided the spaghetti bowl look. More people are building layouts with operation in mind, especially if its not their first layout. After all you can only watch a train going round in circles for so long and once you get that first hurried layout done, you realize that there is so much more you can do with it. So, to reiterate, I have seen a definite improvement in layout planning and execution lately.
Yes, Thankyou, I'm not trying to start an argument, or tell someone they're doing something wrong. Never let it be said that I ever told somebody they COULDN'T do their own thing, though I will feel no qualms expressing reservations or comments on why they WOULD do something. I'm stating a personal preference and trying to spark a conversation. I for one enjoy the scenery as much as the train. Even railfaning, I am not a fan of the 3/4 wedge roster shot. I want to see the context of the railroad. Which is also what I like in model railroads. It doesn't take oodles of space either. Or doesn't have to I should say. Also, as ctxm points out, the wedding cake style is the one that is least preferable to me. Logical spurs are fine though often less is more visually. Personally, I love to run my trains in a circle just to watch them run, but no wedding cakes, no figure 8s. In the scene out of the scene, then around again. That's my personal preference when just watching them run.
That being the case, you would like my N scale ArkLaTex Sub. It's on a hollow-core door, with both visible track & staging. Trains leave staging on one end and enter the "main stage", so to speak, do their thing, and exit the other side back into staging. Meanwhile, I have action going on out on stage with a switcher working a paper mill (which, due to its size, does need a lot of track, but is still selectively compressed). And besides the paper mill on one end, I have a poultry feed mill on the other, so there's plenty of work for a local or the local switch crew. Plus, the MoPac makes an appearance now & then with interchange traffic. I understand where you're coming from with your statement. I'm personally not fond of spaghetti-bowl trackplans myself, but if that's what floats yer boat, man, go for it. It's a big hobby with room for everybody.
Mine certainly has too much track, or rather specialwork, in one place and if (when) I start over I will be more careful about that. Generally though the statement is true and I think is partly personal taste, and a lot experience. When young we paint the walls black and red and bright green, and buy autos with fancy paint and chrome. But as time goes by we (well, most of us ) realise that less is more.
While I would have worded things differently than YoHo I do feel he made it clear he did not intend state or imply that only his position was the correct one. I can remember in my early days of designing the Grey and Grandure a particularly acerbic person stated unequivocally that I had too much track. They would not suggest how to fix it or even what they meant. < rolls eyes >. Over all that was not very helpful. Even in its 3rd major design change it is still a "track dense" layout. I like it like that. This layout includes everything I want: Continuous running Disproportionately large yard Switching Expansion options To me a model railroad is a creative outlet emphasizing visual esthetics. Being visually impared and the son of an artist I have studied form, color, balance etc. My conclusion is that the density of track on a layout is not the issue. It is a combination of the track plan, scenery, colors, relative proportions of sizes and juxtaposition there of that will make the difference between a convoluted "Escherism" (think staircases going upside down and around the walls) or a tranquil Monet with haystacks. As for having a "history" I don't see why it is important for the individual model railroader. Yes, if he wants one, great! but that really is a very personal "taste". Yes, I have one but it is completely abstract and many find absurd. The GandG is a connecting road through the Grandure Valley (the only place on Earth where "Mystrium" is found). The Great Norther (which in my world asorbed the Union Pacific and all such equipment gets patched) and the Canadian Pacific have running rights through the valley.
Gotta agree with Dave here. If one wishes to have their scenery truly dominate the layout, then in my book they are diorama builders, not model railroaders. Model railroading is about the trains, with the scenery there to support them, not the other way around. Even so, the hobby has long since moved away from the true spaghetti-bowl designs that dominated in the 1950's and I think today most well designed layouts built by experienced modelers have a rather good balance between their trackage and scenery. Certainly, space is a major factor for most of us and to give over 90% of that to scenery alone can leave you with room for nothing more than a single loop of track. Personally, I like good scenery and my real gripe is with the guys at the opposite end of this spectrum, like Dave Burrows who in the 1990's modeled track on plywood and absolutely no scenery at all, yet claimed it was viable model railroading. Those sorts of layouts are the exact same thing juveniles did with their Lionels in the 50's and it's really stretching things to consider it classic model railroading simply because the trains are run according to car cards and schedules. (Incidentally, Burrows, who championed this concept in MR, ripped up his own track-on-plywood layout after less than two years.) NYW&B
Too much track? Aint no such thing!! Actually I agree entirely. My problem is that in O scale in order to handle a "woking" layout (i.e. something more than a simple loop) AND have a balance with scenery I will need a room/building the size of a small state! Having said this I will be keeping my modules narrow (like my gauge LOL!) but building massive mountain "walls" that intermix with the backdrop to give a sense of just how small these trains were when put into the mountain setting of Colorado. This will also force the casual viewer to use their imaginations...that is the plan anyhow.
Bravo! A realistic track plan is not a bowl of spaghetti. It allows for scenery. Having seen the ridiculously complex, "where's the train coming out?" track plans of the 50s and 60s, I am glad modern design has advanced beyond that.
While I wouldn't keep you from doing what you want, I have to disagree with this statement. Like many other things in life, more is not necessarily better; a well-designed track plan is what makes model railroads work best, and that does not imply MORE track, just a design that leads to good operating possibilities.
In my opinion, the Europeans (mainly the Germans) are much worse than the Americans when it comes to the question of too much track on layouts. Two words best describe many German layouts: Swiss cheese and spaghetti (maybe I am getting hungry ) In other words, a lot of track in a small space spread over many levels in mountainous landscape. I sometimes get the feeling that Germans don't consider a layout complete until a casual observer is completely unable to predict from which tunnel portal a train will emerge.
I'm one of those who has discovered a passion for scenery. I spend much more time building and detailing my scene than anything else. But, my layout has a staggering amount of track for a 5x12 foot island. This shot is not current, but the trackage hasn't changed significantly: The full magnitude of the disaster is realized when you see an earlier photo, showing the subway tracks which are mostly hidden beneath the surface layout: I'm personally happy with the layout as it's coming along, although I would really, really like more total space. In a small space like mine, I wanted a yard and a roundhouse/turntable, in addition to the subways. Even these modest "gotta haves" required a bunch of track and tight-radius curves. And if that requires a spaghetti-bowl, well, the Pastafarian in me doesn't mind at all. I'm planning an addition, which may or may not ever get built. Having already crowded the yard and roundhouse into the current space, I have the freedom to base the remainder of the plan on hidden staging, a long-run mainline, and some switchable industries. At least the first part of the addition, though, will likely be a narrow shelf, so even these modest requirements will have a lot of track relative to the square footage. I just don't see how even a room-sized layout can provide much operational interest with prototypical track density, at least not in HO gauge.
I know what YoHo is taking about too much track on layouts but I think another point that has too be considered and that what you are modeling. In my Bullet train track plan I thought I had too much track, but when I really started looking at the prototypical photos of the Japanese RR, I could have used more track. It's a very congested rail system and in Japan they use every inch of space available. So a present day prototypical Japanese layout would have a lot of track, but this is a special case.
I'm building my layout using narrow "domino" modules precisely because I don't want to have to model a lot of "excess" scenery :tb-biggrin:. I'm just not as interested in modeling mountains and towns as I am the track side industries my railroad serves, etc. I settle for creating the impression or suggestion that these other features are somewhere beyond the "edge of the table". I'm more focused on operations, plus I have a limited amount of time for my hobby right now because of work and other pursuits, and I'd like to see progress while I'm also able to operate trains. Check out pictures of David Barrows' latest version of his Cat Mountain & Santa Fe. More power to people who have the time, money, talent, and interest in doing these other things -- I love to look at them in the magazines... That's one of the things that's great about this hobby: your way is the right way -- for you!
In my personal opinion...I like a balance of trains to scenery. Even though my Miniature world is designed to help me escape from reality, I like to have that real world feel to it. I am against the "spaghetti bowls" of the past. To me, and again only my opinion when there is too many tracks it starts to have that "train set" feel to it, and for me I loose interest in it. If it doesn't look real to me, it just doesn't feel right. Now having said that, I have the utmost respect for all people that have interest in trains, and I respect their wishes to 'model" as they see fit!
It's very difficult to model a railroad, when you must compress it into a restricted space. There must be enough potential action included, to keep up interest levels. It's difficult to keep things simple. Too little included, and you're simply a loop display around the room. Which can quickly become boring. Most of us simply don't have the space available, (or time and money), to create a vast scenic expanse. Boxcab E50
No one said a good layout has to have a "vast scenic expanse." But too much track is just as bad as not enough track.
