John Armstrong's central midland

I had another spaghetti bowl layout early on,...one designed by John Armstrong,...so perhaps therein my interest developed
( https://forum.mrhmag.com/post/the-central-midland-layout-by-john-armstrong-atlas-plan-29-12207702 )

You are just maximizing railroading per square foot!

So long as you’re having fun with your layout, thats all that matters.

In my view, you are getting the maximum amount of railroading possible into your space and have come up with innovative approaches to using the space.

The Prototype Use To Look Like That

The interesting truth about spaghetti bowl track plans is that during the extended period of maximum rail trackage many spots looked like them. 

Someone, who me?, needs to post some images proving the point.

It depends on the scene being modeled.

Some locations look fine with lots of tracks, others look so wrong. The classic bad design is multiple level tracks in a wedding cake stack. Curved trestles on peninsula ends are a close second, maybe beat out by multiple high bridges of parallel railroads  spanning remote canyons.....DaveB 

4 level wedding cake prototype

my present day lower deck

Prototype loops, grades 180 degree turns & multiple levels

Decades ago I had a

Decades ago I had a "spaghetti bowl". 

I think the general problem

I think the general problem with spaghetti bowl track plans is that they tend to also involve a lot of other compromises. Tighter radius, table tops that are too wide to reach. And for all that, it's hard to do scenery on them. I would say anecdotally that Spaghetti bowl layouts are the ones I see that are most likely to not make it to the scenery phase. Or they have very basic scenery.

And to each their own. If it brings you joy, then it's the right track plan for you, but it forces other compromises on you. 

Busy track plans are not "Problems"

 they are the style of railroading someone chooses.   The use of the word "problem" in the subject of the previous post is problematic for me.  This seems to imply a lot of track and a busy layout is "a problem" in some way.   It is  not.

   Like the photo shows, the choice was to model a busy industrial area.  I think it looks great BTW...   if you have that kind of track plan then no need to feel you are being robbed of scenery such as mountains or some scenic terrain (as the narrow stones you added seem to show you wanted to add)  I thought the skinny Stones and rocks on the back wall area looked quite interesting in this scene.   But If you want scenery....   you plan for that..    you do not build the sidings and yards or travel into another area if you want to create ravines and/or mountains.   

   Lots of track all creating a busy, fun, operational system is never a "Problem"  It is a choice.     Personally I like the busy switching operations and problem solving.  Others just want to run trains. 

"if it brings you joy then it's the right track plan for you"     Well this is either true or it isn't it can't be both.   

Enjoy,  I'd only hope everyone can create as many realistic scenes as possible and cram as much detail into your modeling as possible.  For me, it is FUN to see the clever ways people add weathering and details and create many mini scenes, even on the smallest of railroads.    

Randy

multiple high bridges, parallel railroads spanning high canyons

Ohhh yes.   the stuff of model railroading legend.  and perfectly prototypical.  Here's a shot of multiple bridges and trains crossing high canyons.  Good stuff.    

  I get modelers who try and deem this type of spectacular modeling less than worthless.  It is sad that the man who was more or less the father of weathering and responsible for bringing scenic realism to the forefront of the hobby...would ever suffer this modern day phenomenon.   

I sent along a photo of the Vance Creek Bridge in Oregon. (center)  Now look at that structure.. several hundred feet long 300 feet off the ground.  What a spectacular piece of engineering..  and to scale model it requires a realistically massive valley and mountains to perch the roadbeds so it all looks possible.     Someone once told me in an almost angry utterance of disgust that his high steel bridge was "fantasy land stuff", others have used terms like "Disney World", and "cartoonish".    These same people are simply not big enough to admit they were wrong and I'd bet they never will be.  I'd say the man did a hell of a job spanning that massive valley and creating a very prototypical structure.  Just like the real railroad did in Oregon.....    

  Now for me..    I love the strict discipline for real world models only.  And the super detailed and highly accurate prototype model work.    It is a great sub group within the hobby.   And they certainly have their honored place in the modeling world.  But it is odd that I have this ability to compliment good work where I see and can tip my hat to brilliant prototype work when I see it.   But this same curtesy is fairly often not returned and that this phenomenon also comes so often ONLY from these same prototype purists.  That is a flaw that some of the best of the group should get ahold of... some of these excellent prototype modelers should discourage this foolishness as best they can.    IMHO those few modelers are doing more to drive new modelers away than they are in bringing anyone in.   

Just a few more real world examples of prototype modeling at its finest all contained within freelance creations.  No cartoons here kids.   

Spaghetti or A Stalk of Celery?

Seems to me it all boils down to taste and preferences.

I have a friend that has a "spaghetti bowl" in a spare garage, and he and his local MR friend enjoy it tremendously. He won't be in want for switching opportunities anytime soon, thus he will not face the bordeom with the operational "same old same old" that a small, simplistic layout can devolve to. He's now starting to put in some scenery, and it is enhancing the overall feel of the layout. He's having a ball.

Others prefer a simpler serving for a meal of something far less complex. Thus, the "less is more" approach is taken and simplicity rules. Advocates of such an approach typically tout the advantages of "Negative Space" and other perceived advantages. (And if not careful, such advocates can sound condescending.) This is well and good as long as the layout owner is pleased with it personally.

I would think that one's layout being personally pleasing to the owner is very important. However, seems to me that many model RR's are quite concerned about what other model RR's will think about their layout efforts, and thus try to fit in/onto it whatever the latest buzz words/fads in layout design happen to be.

I guess I fall somewhere in between. I have lengthy stretches of track that have no spurs and such, only the track and allowances for mountainous scenery, but in contrast I tend to place as many industries as I feel comfortable with in my towns. No doubt, those that view the towns on my layout from the latter persuasion will feel there's "too many industries", yet by contrast the spaghetti lover sees the expanses of track without a spur and/or siding and think "wasted space"!

However, I wanted enough variety of operation to keep me entertained for the rest of my modeling life (I'll turn 70 in March) so my time and money investment won't be in vain. A simplistic two or three spur layout, or a larger layout without enough to do, simply won't cut it for me. I would get operationally bored with it too quickly, and next thing you know it will sit and gather dust, OR, I'll lose my investment in it because I'll want to tear it out and try something else.

Bottom line for me is: I decided long ago to try to model what I want, how I want, and tune out the noise that says otherwise. In the final analysis, my layout has to please me as it's first priority. IF it does that, then the design and execution is a success. IF I can get over a decade of enjoyment out of a layout, then I feel that, too, tends to indicates it is/was a good layout for my givens n' druthers.

As is always the case with my posts, the above are simply my opinions based on my past experiences that I've learned about myself in my life's journey with model RR-ing.

As pertaining to your model RR-ing endeavor: The above is most certainly in the "FWIW" category.

Andre

Who cares

Why worry about what someone else calls your layout? Are you happy with it? Does it run well? 

Labels are IMO crazy because someone is just trying to put you into one big box of similar ideas or layouts.

I have a shelf layout that does have an option to be a continuous run. I don’t care what people think as many don’t like a point to point, the continuous run is not prototypical and shelf layouts don’t allow for depth.

On the picture below, you can see the edge of the world

Enjoy what you have

TomO

Andre

It's been awhile since I took a look at either one of your blogs. Just seeing your name brought up visions of short trains, tight curves and well detailed scenes. Thankyou for a very inspirational MR.

Jack

Worry ?

No. no real worries for me.  I hope no one else cares either...   But before my posts are thought to be some complaint about what others think of me or my work, let me please clarify.    The focus of my posts are on the damage that the people who do have opinions about other peoples work can cause and the things THEY say that can discourage creativity in general and that fact can drive new members away from the hobby rather than bringing them in.    And that is an important point to highlight. 

 I also find it a bit surprising that this is so often coming from some of what many of us would consider very talented modelers in the hobby and because of this, their opinions hold some weight.  It is important that this be discouraged whenever possible by us all.  it is a real phenomenon.  I have dealt with it because of my John Allen work.  He seems to be a threat to the prototype modeler or something.  It's like a hive of bee's when I speak of his work within ear shot of the PP.  

 Many new comers try and enjoy this hobby and if they want to create a freelance layout and perhaps they want to build a tall spindly bridge or span a wide valley.  Modelers of all styles and experience should help them do what they want.  Even if their talents are not quite up to snuff yet.... because it is the vision they have and that desire to build that tall bridge that will push them to improve and to persevere and to stay with the hobby. 

Randy

"A spaghetti bowl"

can be good, I had one for dinner ,pasta, Italian sausage and sauce along with a salad. The problem with them when it comes to layouts is their builders usually don't know enough about railroads or modeling to pull off a plausible scene. A busy city industrial district,passenger terminal , or carfloat served terminal looks great with spaghetti bowl track work but add an Appalachian coal mine and a Pittsburg steel mill and some John Allen cliffs and bridges on adjacent streets and it will look like a bad dream. Sure folks can model what they want but that doesn't mean it is high quality work. The ones willing to study and learn will advance and the ones who don't will not, just like any acquired skill. Mixing eras, ignoring geology, city street structure, land use-zoning conventions etc. draws a viewer's eyes to the inaccuracies and make it hard to focus on the better features of the layout. It's really  a matter of being willing to learn how to do things better while still doing what one wants. Of course one can always choose to just stay bad at anything in life and just ignore those who are willing to put in the effort to improve :> ) ....DaveB

I think there's some mixed up

I think there's some mixed up definitions here.

The term Spaghetti bowl was orginally coined to refer to Chicago's Circle Interchange where the Eisenhower, Kennedy and Dan Ryan expressways along with Ida B. Wells dr (formerly Congress BLVD) meet. It was renamed the Jane Byrne Interchange after the former mayor in 2014. in 2010 this was considered the most congested piece of interstate in the country.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jane_Byrne_Interchange#/media/File:Chicago_Circle_Interchange_2018.jpg

the term Spaghetti bowl then was genericized to refer to any stacked freeway interchange that was broadly in the same style. 

So when we use the term to describe a model railroad, it is typically referring to track that is stacked on top of each other with very very little straight track to be had. Looping in and out over and under.

So, a dense industrial area with lots of track is not even remotely a spaghetti bowl. 

If I had to describe it in a sentence I would call it a layout with at least one loop that has track on multiple levels spaced such that natural grade separations are not possible. If I were given a follow on sentence it would be "retaining walls everywhere."

I ONLY describe such a design as problematic, because it is often a design that new modelers choose and it often forces compromises that make the building of the layout harder for those same new modelers. 

It is not, to me, problematic to desire such a layout, but it is a challenging build and one that new modelers gravitate towards and that is a really bad combination. New Modeler, design prone to challenges.

Spaghetti bowls...

There are a number of valid reasons for a spaghetti bowl layout. Where it seems they started to fall out of favor, though, was when the focus in model railroading started to shift from personal railfanning of your layout, or small-scale operations, to larger "multi-player" layouts. The argument against a spaghetti bowl becomes one of elbow room and access for the crew(s). A more expansive layout reduces the need to stand shoulder to shoulder and rub elbows while trying to operate, especially in smaller scales.

If you're not going to be having others in to help you operate, the spaghetti bowl gives you more run time in a given space. If you want multiple crews, you're best served by avoiding the pasta.

Problematic?

Yes, spaghetti bowl track plans are problematic.

As proof I offer Railandsail's copious posts on this forum.  He is always having problems squeezing track in, making switches fit, when he puts in one scene it intrudes onto another scenes, he has problems with capacity on grades, on cars and engines negotiating tight curves, etc, etc, etc.

All evidence that spaghetti bowl track plans are problematic.

On the other hand, he may not care.  He may be happier having tracks jammed in everywhere and yard tracks only a car or two long than having scenery or making something prototypical.  He may like the challenge of overcoming those barriers.  And that's perfectly fine.  It's his layout and the only person he needs to satisfy is himself.  

But that doesn't negate the fact that squeezing all that into one space has caused problems.

Good to speak of it...

My point is the term is overused and it is not always bad to make the best use of your space.     

  You're points are both well stated and I'd have to agree very much with your assessment of a novices tendency to over do it and end up pushing the scenery aspects of a layout to the side because of it.. are most likely very correct. 

But even I get insults from very arrogant modelers who use this term as well as every other they can pull out of the nasty box to describe their disapproval in assessing one of the greatest layouts ever built.   And if these modelers have the nerve to try and insult the life's work of the man who brought the term "realism" to the hobby, then I can only imagine how many people who are new to the hobby would be treated by many of todays modelers.    So my assessment is just a caution...  Nothing more.   I don't think some of us are aware of or forget how important it is to welcome the new guys and remember what it was like to be new to everything. It is so easy to chase people from the ranks through the loss of simple curtesy.   

The NMRA is good for the open house visits they arrange...  this is a great way to get new modelers to see what is possible with some restraint and good planning.   And Clubs are also good ways to keep the hobby alive.   But the value of and weight of what an experienced modeler says to a newcomer is right up there.   

I have now spoken with a few people who tell me they used to want to get into model railroading but rather than be inspired by some of the excellent modelers they were more or less not given the time of day and it is terms like this one begin thrown around by these same long time modelers that are as influential in a negative way as all the low value, product promoting articles, in all the magazines, combined.  

I sent in the photo's to more or less also show the proto police how often they are wrong in assessing the horror's of seeing a freelance layout.  LOL      There are real places and real structures and high stone mountains that are not fantasy world or unrealistic.   I was just poking the bear....  and the nuts and bolts of our hobby and the new blood that we are not seeing as much of is worth an assessment from time to time.    I've gotten a few comments that make me realize how important patience and mentoring is.  After years of modeling and learning, it is easy to forget where we started and what kept us in the game.        

Randy  

My Layout Plan Explained I

My Layout Plan Explained

I recall many suggestions that I begin with a list of Givens & Druthers. I did NOT do that in a written form, …..perhaps for several reasons:
 

1. I was looking around a various drawing/sketches that might strike a cord with me, and that I could fit into my space. I realized that some of these track plans might not have the structures/scenes I was sort of dreaming of.

2. I might end up making a list that was just not doable, and I would be disappointed in not being able to follow such a list.

I think I had a general idea of what I was after, but I keep it in my mind rather than on paper,...(might not be the best approach).
 

Basically I was interested in the interaction of the railroad with the industries they serve, so I wanted as many different industries I could get on my RR. I think I have been pretty successful at that goal. On my relatively small layout, 11x15, lower deck I have,..

https://forum.mrhmag.com/post/spaghetti-bowl-layoutstrackplans-12219370

1) Steel Mill Complex,.... including 3 big structures, blast furnace, electric furnace, and rolling mill
2) Diesel Eng Service bld
3) Freight Yard
4) Diesel Engine fueling and sanding complex with 2 tracks
5) Big Turntable & Roundhouse for big steam engines
6) Multiple Outdoor Track storage for steamers
7) Large Coaling Tower for those steamers
8) Baltimore City Backdrop in Corner (not shown yet)
9) Stone Arch Viaduct like one near Baltimore

10) Interlocking Tower and control of dbl-slip switch at entrance to Peninsula Industries
11) Switching/Yard Crews Shack
12) Balt Container unloading/loading yard
13) Car-Float Facility
14) Municipal Pier Sorting & Storage Building
15) Traveling Pier Crane Loader for small freighter ships
16) Barrel Factory, and perhaps another industry nearby
17) Railcar & Engine Repair Industry bld (up near viaduct bridge, not built yet)

18) More Viaduct Plus Bridge Structure
19) Power Plant (coal) , (with electrical distribution transformers)
20) Coke Production Plant
21) Several different small industries along inboard tracks on right side of layout, (likely small brewer and railway express office)
22) Likely industrial scenes or flats along that wall on the right.
23) Brick Factory with 3 kilns and stacks
24) Water Front loading scene for barged in material for brick factory,..and coal barges
25) Marvelous Waterfront Scene I purchased from an estate sale
26) Cement Storage/Distribution Plant in back corner.

And that's just the lower deck!! (wait and see what I have planned for the upper deck)

Fitting all of that on my relatively small layout plan was a chore, particularly as I tried to provide reasonable size curves and turnouts for actually train operations to reach those industries. I've also provided for a number of different type switchers (diesel, steam, and trackmobile) to move train cars around in those areas.
 

I decided long ago that I did NOT want to restrict myself to a certain time frame,...there are just too many interesting model trains to possible run,....So strictly prototypical is not for me.

I look upon model trains as scale miniatures that can actually be operated rather just put in a display cabinet. Some of our recent models are so detailed that likely the display cabinet is the safest place for them,....and they have gotten to be really expensive, so I think I will be content with reasonable good models that can be manhandled with ease.

I would like to thank a number of folks on this forum that helped me get things somewhat in order of correctness. I didn't take all the advice, but that which was offered sincerely and I thought might be done on this compact design.

I agree with Dave1905

And all I am seeing from most other posts here is a lame attempt at using exceptions and outliers to justify poor trackplanning and layout design.

Just a suggestion

For Brian: At end of track, before installing proper track bumpers. Move those push pins to the outside of the track and place a rubber band across. A rubber band causes less damage to a car/coupler if it hits that end. I've done that for years and it works for me. Also, I use more than one rubber band in case one breaks from drying out. Of course, this is temporary. But IMHO temporary sometimes lasts a long time.

Choices

From Brian's post, he makes it clear that he has chosen a Zen layout (one with everything) and that's what makes him happy.  And that's great.  He's livin the dream.

It all boils down to what effect the layout owner is trying to achieve.  My son's previous layout could be described as a "bowl of spaghetti" and, yes, I intentionally designed it that way for many of the same reasons that Brian built his layout, He had some specific operational goals I wanted to achieve, and I had to fit those into a constrained space. Following a prototype and scenic considerations were secondary.