Part of my planned layout is designed in a front to back stairstepped fashion, with the base elevation in front, then a 6" elevation behind that, then a 12" elevation along the wall. There's going to be one long run along a 24ft long wall with this configuration, and all tracks on the three elevations running in parallel. But I'm starting to have second thoughts about such a balanced arrangement. Being an engineer, my designs tend a bit too much towards symmetry, and I find I have to stop myself regularly and rethink in terms of introducing some visual interest and complexity. I'm also planning on using the area behind the mid-elevation for a "stop and wait to give the impression that the train is off travelling somewhere" hiding area, so that limits my options a bit. The pro's of this symmetrical design are that you can see the entire length of a long train (not sure if this is really a "pro"), and the cons are that it sounds kinda boring. Anyone have any thoughts on which approach is more visually interesting? Thanks.
Humans like curves. There is a much greater visual apeal in a long smooth set of reverse curves. Add a train snaking along it and you have a captivating scene. What scale? how deep is this area. The pros to straight track: 1) Easier to plan 2) Esier to measure 3) More relyable operation The cons: 1) Boring - Execpt in a yard where it can be very exciting to see rows of track filled with cars.
This is just a thought. I have seen a few smaller layouts where someone took 2 or 3 'timesavers' and added them together to get a unique and very interesting layout that was symetrical in its own way but also very challenging. I was thinking that you could add one [or part of one] into your design just to 'mess it up' a bit and add a challenge. As to where to find them I don't have links but maybe someone else knows. Anyhow, if it is too 'clean' looking it will be boring rather fast. At least for me it would be. Might as well be an oval then. :S Anyhow, this is modeling and should be fun and a little challenging is the little space we have. That's my thinking anyhow. So add some switching problems. Even just a one car siding with a dock can add to the fun. One of the other 'tricks' is to change the elevation by even as little as an inch can make the layout appear deeper then it really is. The more elevation you have [within reason] the deeper the layout will appear. Also it makes a visual break that allows you to make a different 'section' and keeps the areas distinct as well. On my layout I have 4 distinct sections and yet it is only 4 by 6 feet in size. By doing this I can seperate each of the areas visually and operationally and YET it is still available as a whole if you simply step back and take it all in. Kind of the best of both worlds. Go have a look and see what I mean. Hope that was what you were looking for.
Just a thought... Look at lots of layout pictures and look at prototype photos too. Look at train magazines, the track plans in particular. Clip out or make notes and sketches of what is visually appealing to you. Sort of a scrap book of design ideas. Once you have some references to go from then you can begin making a track plan. If you can post a sketch of your track plan then maybe we could help you with your layout design.
Is there a peticular reason you want 6" between levels? Are all 3 levels going to be connected to each other? To gain 6" of elevation with a 2% grade it will take roughly 24 feet, regaurdless of what scale you are using. If your layout is 24' long that means the majority of the layout will be on grade with only the middle showing 3 seperate levels. Will you have turnarounds at both ends of the layout? or is it a point to point one way trip? Like Steve and Geeky have mentioned a rough drawing of the area you are using and basic track plan would sure help us visualize what you are discribing.
I chose 6" for a couple of reasons. First, I'm planning on having a big gorge that the trains emerge from, and I figured a 12" high gorge wall would about be the minimum to get the dramatic visual effect I'm looking for. And second, with 3/4" thick plywood, 6" between levels gives less than 5" clearance from top of the track to the bottom of the subroadbed above (assuming a cork roadbed). And at one point I want to have a bottom level track cross under the grade of a mid level track, and at the crossing point there's just barely enough clearance. Yeah, there are going to be two grades along a 24' wall, but both are going to be hidden. That's the good thing about the stair step design, you can have two parallel tracks on the same level, one visible and one hidden under the higher level. Since turnarounds take too much space, I decided that there would be no turnarounds or turntables. Instead all of my diesels will be mu'd back to back, and at the end of any line I'll have runarounds, so I just uncouple, run around to the other end, and I'm off and running. This layout is a combination of point to point and loop. I'm working on cleaning up my layout diagram and I'll post it in the next couple of days. But anyway, the bottom and mid levels are point to point, and the top level is a loop. There are transition grades between all levels. [/quote]
As far as a train looking long, I think that a train looks longer when you don't see it all at once, but rather you see part of it over here, and part of it over there, but some is hidden. I think the effect wirks even better on a curve. But, that said, I am also an engineer (though electrical) and I think when it is all said and done I am going to have too much parallel stuff, too. Some things you just can't fix! Jeff
