Uncertainty

To me, the least favorite aspect of the design process is having an idea, running with the idea for an extended period of time, then attempting to execute the idea only to find it doesn't work as planned or just doesn't work, period. I've hit this wall a few times now, especially when planning how the railroad will operate.  I find it extremely difficult to visualize how a train will service a particular customer without actually having the train and customer in front of me.  Several of the industries on my current trackplan took hours of planning only to find out I missed an important fact and have to start over from scratch.

The other frustrating aspect is benchwork.  Again, even with the given dimensions of my trackplan, I never feel like I'm constructing the benchwork correctly - it's the one and ONLY area where I'd pay someone to do the work for me!

Lastly, I've been pulling my hair out recently trying to finalize the train room's dimensions.  The Mayor (aka my fiance) granted me exclusive building rights over the entire basement; however, I know that if I do use the entire space, there will be no room for storage.  This Catch 22 has been eating at me for a while and I'm now considering reducing my plan from a 230' mainline double-decker to a 30' single-deck switching layout. 

Touche, Mrs. Mayor, touche...

Naming it!

I have what I want in a track plan and a reason for its existence.  My problem is naming it.  I have ideas about names, but actually deciding on the names I feel would be good is my main frustration.  I will figure it out one day.

Den

Storage In The Layout Room

Johnny,

In my shop I built high storage racks to hold white office supply boxes. This storage is up out of the way and leaves the floor space for benches and walking room. I also use the area under the benches for storage.

You could design some rolling shelves that would hold standard storage boxes or bins that could roll out when you needed to work under the layout. The storage boxes keep things hidden and neat looking, just label the ends for locating your stuff. The area under most layouts is only needed to wire and place switch machines, at other times it is not needed for your hobby.

Above the layout install high cabinets with doors for storage of items that you need quick access to. It would also be a good place for all those locomotives that won't fit on the layout, Just don't drop them when taking them out.

This is a great solution, because the bigger the train layout the more storage room you will have, should make the spouse real happy.

Regards

John

*********************************************************************************************************************************************

 I carry a gun cause a cop is too heavy. Clint Smith

Thank You

Johnny - A few hours doesn't seem like a lot of time wasted to find out that an idea doesn't work. You could have built the tracks and then found out it wouldn't work. Am I missing something? What about benchwork is it that you don't like? Why do you feel like you aren't doing it right?

Den - I'm guessing you have several names, what are they, and why don't they work?

Only Problem...

John, the biggest hurdle I've had to cross is the 7'6" ceilings in my basement which only gives me a little over a foot to work with, standing at 6'2". Because of an electrical panel, my upper level benchwork is limited to 56" off the floor.  If I am to continue with my double-deck plan, the lower level will have to sit at about 38" off the floor to leave enough vertical separation between levels (14"-16" railhead to railhead) to make operations comfortable. So cabinets, unfortunately, are out of the question. I will be building shelves in the basement opposite my train room for storage but my trackplan is starting to creep into that space as well!

Ken, the rolling shelves idea is probably going to be my best bet.  Currently, I'm exploring a canterlevered support system for the lower level to eliminate benchwork legs.  I don't like benchwork only because the last thing I am, or will ever be, is a carpenter.  I'll sit under a layout and wire and solder all day but working with wood is something I've never gained any level of comfort with.  Especially now as the new layout will require a helix and some clever benchwork solutions to get around a few sticky spots in my basement.

Also, Ken, you're right: a few hours isn't a killer but, because I am working with such a small space with tight clearances and radii, one mess up requires an entire area to be rebuilt as all the curves, spurs and sidings have been configured a certain way in order to fit.  So a few hours of poor design results in many hours of reworking an area.  Keep an eye out for my latest revision of my trackplan - I'm hoping to post it up in the next day or so.

Den, I had the same issue when naming my railroad!  If you look back through my posts, you'll see that I changed the name a good half dozen times before I settled on the Plainville, Pequabuck & New London (PPNL): Plainville and New London are the two terminus towns of the line and Pequabuck is a narrow river which snakes its way through central Connecticut which has absolutely nothing to do with the railroad, but I liked the name.  You'll eventually have an "Ah Ha!" moment and figure it out but it'll haunt you until you do!  As Ken said, post the names you have already and, perhaps, we may be able to help you settle on one.

A rose by any other name...

Some suggestions for those trying to come up with a name for their railroad.

First, nearly all real railroad names are geographic in nature. (With the exception of things like R.J. Corman and Patriot Rail, etc). States, cities and prominent geographic features not only sound "railroady" but can also give the viewer a sense of "place" for your road.

Next, if you are planning to use press-on letters to letter your locos, etc, the fewer letters in your railroad's name, the better! Also remember that lettering sheets have very few (usually only about 4) ampersands. Good to know if you are planning on naming your road something like Mudpack & Whiskeyville!

Finally, don't go "cute". Your model railroad will be around long after the cuteness of the name wears thin!

George

My stumbling blocks

Not listening to the advice I was given on the forums. I was warned that my abandoned Halland Yard layout was too big, too complex, the reaches were too long, it didn't have adequate aisle ways. I built it anyway and found out the advice was right. I spent three years on that layout and figured it'd take me several more to complete so I tore it down. I wish I'd listened to advice.

Another problem I've had is trying to reinvent the wheel. There has to be a better way for everything right. I've wasted tons of time searching for better roadboad, trying to make the ultimate switch machine, trying to make my own transfer table. Now I try to use off the shelf products, and not worry too much about making something better or finding a cheaper alternative. People on the train forums have tried just about everything, I just search around and find out what they are recommending.

The other problem I run into is not starting something because I'm afraid I don't know how to do it, or I'm afraid I made the wrong decisions. Ultimately, I've realized I just need to get to work and correct my mistakes when they happen. Otherwise I spend all my time try to prevent mistakes and I never make any progress.

Nothing To Fear But Fear Itself

Greg, you hit what I think is a huge issue for most armchair modelers. Fear that they can't do it. They might be comfortable with many aspects of modeling, but the one that they have no knowledge of, is the one that keeps them from starting a layout. Your solution is absolutely correct. Just start, and worry about problems as they happen. It doesn't take more than a question on a forum, to get the answers you need to make things work.

Johnny, I flunked woodshop, but benchwork doesn't seem that complex or hard (except maybe inside corners). I plan to mount vertical cleats on the studs, then mount a horizontal arm, and an angled brace between them. Using screws, that should be more than strong enough for a support. I can then run boards along the front to create an edge, and the benchwork is done. I can mount risers to the arms to run roadbed.

Don't reinvent the wheel. Good advice.

You need higer cielings Johnny

Wow with both of us being 6'2 we will both be needing helmets when visiting youre lay out lol.

Less is More

One of the keys to a great layout (my opinion) is to realize that you can't have it all. Of the two layouts I have built and torn down, the second was by far more pleasing to me because I cut way back on the amount of track and things I was trying to do.  When the opportunity arises again I will build another layout and probably use even less track work per square foot of layout space than before and focus on the aspects of the scene and try and make that believable.  As George Orwell said " Less is More"

The important thing is to do something.  If you don't like it don't be afraid to rip it out and start over in that area.  I think we all want to get it perfect the first time.  The truth is none of us will and those who we think have the perfect layout will most likely tell us there are things that they wish they had done different.

Good Luck

Don

selective compression

I have a few frustrations given my 19x20 foot room I've had a roof over for 13 years now and still see more unfinished benchwork than anything else.

1. Selective compression. I don't do it well, either in reducing a scene to its key components or finding the signature scenes to include. Usually these two compound each other as when I do settle on a signature scene, once I've compressed it to fit, it no longer has enough signature to seem genuine, even for a place I have never seen in person. Big bridges, helper grades, and wye junctions just don't compress well in my basement.

2. Lightbulb effect. Layout lighting is hugely frustrating. I am not an electrician. My basement room has 4 recessed fixtures in inconvenient places in the finished ceiling, so easily adding more lighting even for a single deck layout has been aggrevating as hell. I know I don't want a pile of flourescent fixtures I have to unplug/turn off separately, but even the thought of temporary wiring different lights using the 120AC fixtures already in place scares the optivisor off me.

3. Wanting too much. I know I try to include too much in a layout plan, but narrowing the focus given limited experience with other people's layouts is tough as I haven't had an opportunity to really explore what type of operating I truly enjoy. I like helper operations and the feel of a train working on a grade, but am I willing to sacrfice industrial areas to lengthen the grade enough to make helper ops a theme of the layout and can that work in N scale? I know I want several large industries on my layout (paper mill, cement plant), but finding ones that compress nicely has been challenging (see #1). 

4. Prototype lack. Sure there is a prototype for everything, but trying to find one section of a favorite prototype that has everything I want: helper ops, industrial switching, big industries, interchange, big bridge, and a couple others has been a fruitless exercise in Bing and Google Maps use.

5. Sense of lack: How do I know the plan will fill my desires, be managable by me for construction and maintenance and offer enjoyable solo operation at times while allowing a smallish group ( assuming if I build it they will come) to spend relaxing evenings enjoying the layout.  

6. That click effect. Some plans you see in print just seem to click for that space. I get a strong sense from the track plan, and sometimes the accompanying comments (especially in MRP issues) that the genius light went off while the plan was crafted. The layout design efficiently uses the space in a pleasing manner where you can justify the claim that this was the best way to model said prototype in that space.

I could go on. For more you could see the thread I started several weeks ago that hasn't gotten a nibble of response yet.

Peter Pfotenhauer

Still thinking I want a UP based modern layout, but freelancing is calling.

Decisions, Decisions...

Peter,

You've got quite a laundry list of things, and that's actually good. It shows that you're thinking about possibilities. As a prior person posted, no one is ever completely satisfied with the layout they build. Something can always be done better. It sounds like this is your first layout, so don't worry about making it perfect. Think of it as a Chainsaw Layout.

A Chainsaw Layout is one you build with the understanding that you will probably take a chainsaw to it at some time, in order to build a better layout. That doesn't mean the layout is in any way low quality, it's simply a test bed, to see how things work.You may find once you have trains running, that it suits you well enough to never take it apart.

Also, since it's a Chainsaw, you tend not to feel so bad if you have to dismantle parts in order to improve things. It's not intended to be a Masterpiece, it's the layout that lets you figure things out.

Selective compression and layout design - Have you joined the Layout Design SIG email group? They talk a lot about Layout Design Elements (LDE's) which are usually industries, since industries are the focus of operations. The philosophy is that you design two or more LDE's and then simply connect them with track to create a main line. That way you focus your time on the track you'll be using most. I think you'll find that by doing that, your track plan falls together much easier. It may also help you with selective compression and other issues you mention.

As for a single prototype that does everything you want, you really have three choices: You can design a layout around a single prototype, which probably isn't going to have all the types of operations you want. This probably means cutting back and doing only a couple of things you want, operationally.  You can use more than one prototype as inspiration for a freelance layout, allowing your imagination to run wild, and do everything you want. Or you can do both, which is probably the best way. Cut your desires back to one or two things you really want to do, and do them as well as you can in the space you have.

Model railroaders want it all, especially the newer ones. Unfortunately, most people can't have their cake, and eat it too. Think about what really draws you to railroads. Make up a Given & Druthers list of what you MUST have, and what you WANT to have. Design the must haves first, then if there's room, add in the wants that will fit.

It's all a matter of priorities.

Pay someone to design it for you.

Den and Ken, thanks for the

Den and Ken, thanks for the encouragement.

I am not an NRMA member, but do subscribe to the LDSIG email group. The LDE approach is one I used in several plans I still have concerns about, but I've seen a lot of nice plans based on them shared on the LDSIG group and in pubs like Model Railroad Planning and in MRH.

19x20 is a bit big for a chainsaw layout. I've done several modules in various NTRAK formats over the years which I guess were chainsaw modules. One plan under consideration is designed to include 2 current modules and planned so the paper mill scene can be NTRAK compatible and removable for shows.

Den, paying a designer isn't in the cards.

I posted a plan of one possible layout plan I drafted, along with Google map images of proto spots related to scenes on the layout plan, but as far as I can tell I am the only one on the forums here to look at that thread.

This is a link to it.  https://forum.mrhmag.com/post/n-scale-plan-for-review-12190584 This one is Mindhim influenced as it focuses a great deal on industrial switching with no real mainline running.

I own every layout book Armstrong wrote and Kalmbach published. Several copies have the covers worn off.

Did look at your plan

Hi Peter

I just checked your plan and you have had 413 reads so far.   Just wanted to let you know that your plan did get attention.

I am not qualified to comment on your plan as I am struggling to come up with a plan of my own also.  I remember seeing your original post and looked it over, but I am interested in small shelf layouts (2 x ?) and large basement empires kinda overwhelm me.  I do look at them to see if there are small "towns" that I can get inspiration from.   I did very much like the way you incorporated Google/Bing map images to show the actual scenes - very good.  My problem is that I would like to model the 1920-40 era and there are no Google images of that. And my frustration comes down to trying to imagine where to put the industries and town in relation to the track plan.  I have seen a number of trackplans that I like, but have trouble trying to decide how to turn it into a convincing/plausible scene.

As I look at plans I am automatically drawn to sections that are or can become LDE's.  

Anyway, just wanted to let you know you plan did get noticed.

Jim wrote: My problem is

 Had a look at Sanborn insurance maps? Like these, available from the Perry-Castañeda online map at the University of Texas: http://www.lib.utexas.edu/maps/sanborn/texas.html

 Here is e.g. the map series for Sweetwater, Tx in 1922:
http://www.lib.utexas.edu/maps/sanborn/s-u/txu-sanborn-sweetwater-1922-01.jpg (overview)
http://www.lib.utexas.edu/maps/sanborn/s-u/txu-sanborn-sweetwater-1922-04.jpg (part 4)
http://www.lib.utexas.edu/maps/sanborn/s-u/txu-sanborn-sweetwater-1922-05.jpg (part 5)
http://www.lib.utexas.edu/maps/sanborn/s-u/txu-sanborn-sweetwater-1922-06.jpg (part 6)
http://www.lib.utexas.edu/maps/sanborn/s-u/txu-sanborn-sweetwater-1922-09.jpg (part 9)
http://www.lib.utexas.edu/maps/sanborn/s-u/txu-sanborn-sweetwater-1922-10.jpg (part 10)
http://www.lib.utexas.edu/maps/sanborn/s-u/txu-sanborn-sweetwater-1922-12.jpg (part 12, incl roundhouse)

 Now - there is one caveat - the maps were made for a fire insurance company. Railroads were self insured. So the maps may not be correct in every detail as to where tracks ran on railroad property. But they sure can give you an impression of the general layout of the scenes, the names of industries and stuff like that.

 Sanborn maps exist for many states. For most you need to access them through a library which has access - a university library or a better public library.

 Another source for information is the Library of Congress' online HABS/HAER (Historical American Building Survey/Historical American Engineering Records)  survey. Google for habs/haer and go have a look - many industries are documented.

 A third source of information is historical photos. Shorpy ( http://www.shorpy.com) has lots of historical images.

 For the 1930s and 1940s, there is a magical series of photos (some in color) by the FSA (Farm Security Administration) and later OWI (Office of War Information). Search e.g. for "Jack Delano".

 Many other places you can also find historical aerials and historical photos. Here is an example from the Minnesota Historical Society, showing the Mississippi Municipal Barge Terminal in Minneapolis: http://collections.mnhs.org/visualresources/image.cfm?imageid=81148&bhcp=1

 Btw - note that I am posting links, not images. This is because I don't have the copyright to the images - but I can refer you to where you can find them and view them for yourself.

 Just a handful of suggestions of possible ways to maybe find information on your historical scenes.

 Smile,
 Stein

Thank you Stein

Stein

Thank you for the list of great resources.   I have tried to find Sanborn maps of Southern Alabama, but as it was mostly a rural area, when I click on a town and date I get some kind of message that basically says that map has not been digitized.  I have found a few so far, but not a lot.

I have found a good number of pictures from libraries and historical societies and Shorpy's is a real treasure trove.  For instance by entering "Mobile Alabama 1920"  and "Mobile Alabama 1930" I gained access to a huge amount of pictures from the Univ of South Alabama.   I have also found photo collections just by following various links that I happen onto.   I had not heard of the Jack Delano  or HABS/HAER  references so will have to check it out.

So little by little I am getting a good idea of how things looked during this era and at this time I do not plan to model anything exactly - I am going for "realistically plausible" as some modelers have called it.  So I guess the frustration part relates to the fact that I have never built a layout and cannot mentally visualize where to put things and how they will look on a layout - for instance what would a particular industry - eg a chemical plant - look like in 1920.   As others have stated, I just have to start doing and gain experience.

I assume you are on your annual pilgramage to Minn, so hope your having a great time.

Later

Workin On The Chainsaw...

Actually, any size layout can be a Chainsaw. It's not the size that matters, but the attitude. I'm planning for a 10X12 room, and I'm going at it as a chainsaw layout. It's the testbed to see what works, and what doesn't.

Actually, Google Earth has a feature that will show you aireal photographs of an area if they have them. They are usually large population centers, but you never know. I know my brother and I used the feature to look at where the London Olympics are being held, as far back as a century ago.

layout height

With low ceilings and tall operator go to chairs, or mechanics adjustable rolling chairs. They are fairly compact some have height adjustment, roll easy and many have a shelf under the seat for tools etc. No more bashing your head, low heights now are closer to eye level and since it was designed to be comfortable while working on something it should serve the same purpose when working on your railroad. One added benefit will be less pain to your feet, back and joints from tramping around on concrete all the time you are in the basement. You may also like to have a creeper for working on the under side of the lower level.

By trying the seated approach you may be able to lower both of your levels enough to enjoy them from the seated height and add your staging levels above the upper level where they can be easily observed and rolling stock can be accessed. The bottom of the staging could serve as mounting points for your layout lighting and would serve the added purpose of keeping the finished portion cleaner than it would be if exposed to the bottom of the floor above.

Getting Professional Help

You might be surprised, Peter, to find out that you can get a pro to look over your plan for a lot less than you think. I did just that with Bryon Henderson at LayoutVision, and found it was well worth the money.

Bryon consults as well as designs, which means you work on the plan, and he provides you with quality feedback and design changes.  I'd at least consider contacting him.

LayoutVision

Ditto Scarpia. Exactly the same thing I did. Byron reviewed my plans and offered suggestions for improvement. Money very well spent.

  You might be

You are probably right about professional feedback costing less than I think, because I can think pretty big. Hobby budget is very limited after 5 years with no raise though. I've seen Byron's LayoutVision webpage and poured over it a few times. He's one of those people with a knack for efficiently utilizing space for a prototype design. I've about concluded that my basement design isn't friendly to prototypes I am interested in enough to pursue. 

19 x 20 sounds great, especially for N scale, but with a fireplace in one wall, a sliding door exit, a walk in entrance in a corner, and a closet under a staircase that comes down a wall to avoid, plus a window and fusebox, there are plenty of obstacles.

Also, I want to keep some space by the fireplace where the room can be used for non train purposes. 

I've gone back to sketching footprints for benchwork trying to find a way to maximize the mainline run of a plan. They're basically all around the wall with different shaped peninsulas. There's the J, G, h, I, O, and Z. It's enough to make me eat alphabet soup for lunch.