You don't know what you don't know

A lot of beginning modelers don't know what they want and don't even know what the options are. 

Asking people, even some "experienced" modelers, what they want a train or a design to "do" gets a deer in the headlights response.  They don't have the vocabulary to even describe what they want.

And much to the dismay of many people focused on instant gratification, it will take years to figure out a lot of that info.

I think the worst thing a beginner can do is to build a "permanent" layout.  I think every beginner should be told not to sweat the details in the first couple layouts because they will, in most cases, die and be cannibalized as the modeler's tastes and direction evolves.  Build it knowing that you will probably become dissatisfied with it and that its OK to tear it down and start over.

Era

In a lot of ways, modeling a modern era is a bad choice.  Most beginner layouts are small which equals small radius curves and #4 switches.  Most modern equipment is big, long engines, long cars, long trains.  Those two factors are in direct opposition.

Yeah, yeah, I know, you can get SD70MAC's and trilevel auto racks around 18" radius curves IF the track is laid very carefully and IF the equipment is maintained to close standards.

But we are talking about a beginner who will not know the pitfalls or have the knowledge and skill to resolve a problem if (when) it occurs.

1950's to 1970's equipment is much more forgiving for the beginner.  A GP7 and a string of 40 ft cars will have a higher success rate around a 4x8 layout than an SD70MAC and a cut of 70 ft boxcars.

There's something to be said for sectional track

Much as I despise the stuff for serious layouts, sectional track is good for beginners.  This allows them to try a few things out and get some ideas of what they like or don't like.  I had sectional track when I stared out and was able to experiment a bit because of that. 

The problem is that it can be expensive, especially the stuff with roadbed.  It can also be an issue when the time comes to part with it and step up to flextrack or handlaid.  The investment in snap switches and 18" radius track may be hard to think of as disposable, and some people end up sticking with the horrible code 100 or code 80 (in N scale) for compatibility's sake instead of making a clean break and starting over with scale track.

Modern era for the beginner

Steam era III [or V?], aka, Late Steam era, is as bad of a choice as the modern era, if one is to go with E units, 85' passenger cars, large articulated/superpower steam engines when 80-100 car trains were the norm...

There is nothing wrong with an MP-15 and a couple 50-60 footers.  And there are a lot of GPs still out there.  I think this is just blind prejudice to say such things.

Every era can be wrong; every era can be right.

I remember

I wanted dramatic scenery, including a tunnel and a bridge, some water and some sort of mountainous/hilly theme.  I really liked nice scenery (and still do).  I also wanted something that I could just let the trains go and watch them go around and around.  I went with N scale as I was young and expected I would be living in an apartment or other type of small accommodation and wanted something I could move easily.  It went south on me back in the 80s as the quality of stuff for N wasn't all that great.  Now, however, N scale stuff is every bit as good as HO.  As pricey as it is, I would recommend Kato Unitrack to newbies.  The stuff is bullet proof, well designed and holds its value well when you go to sell it.  When I got back into it several years ago, I went with the Unitrack and loved it.  Now that I have a better understanding of what I want, I much prefer the flexibility (and economy) of flex track.

Remember your Six "P"s

I'm starting my second layout but the first one, although not a chainsaw, was a huge learning experience.  Jumping into the hobby just a year and a half ago, I knew nothing but wanted EVERYTHING.  The result: A half-a$$ built layout with reasonable operation.  Trial and error was king and the research began well after the first few tracks were laid down.

Now on my second layout, I've spend countless hours compiling reference materials and researching this, that and the other thing.  I now have a pretty damn good trackplan that is suited for my taste for operations over "watching trains" - not that one is better than the other.

My advice to the newbie, (newer than myself): STOP WHAT YOU'RE DOING!  Pick up some reference books, visit some club or home layouts, discuss the fine points of operating a layout, find out what the best equipment is (instead of getting everyone else's opinion on it), learn the lingo and, most of all, be patient.  I jumped the gun and am sorry I did so. Now, armed with painstaking planning and a wealth of knowledge from fellow modelers (thanks MRH!) I'm ready to build a double-decker layout with the confidence I couldn't have dreamed of two years ago.

Proper Planning Prevents P!ss Poor Performance!

For me...

My very first train set was a Lionel with a small oval of track.  Right then and there, my bias was set for the concept of continuous running.   For years, It never occurred to me that there was an option.   I bought layout books, like 101 Track plans, and most of the layouts are continuous running except very small and very large layouts.  

The very small shelf layouts seemed to be offered to folks who had very limited space, and I always wondered what one would actually do with a layout that small.  The very large layouts were where one found the Point to Point configurations.  They required huge spaces and a budget the size of the Union Pacific Railroad's to actually construct.  The middle ground layouts always seemed to be a continuous loop of some sort.   Maybe they were not, but I sub-consciously skipped right over them.  I can't really be sure. Of course, I wanted sidings, but only because one needs a place to park some freight cars so it looks nice.

Watching the trains run is easy.  The concept of having an actual operating session seemed very tedious.  

Yet, it seems to me at this point in my involvement in the hobby, that my tastes are evolving from a focus on continuous running to the trains actually doing some work.  The trains must have some purpose in order for the entire exercise to make some sense. I clearly understand the purposes of passing and staging tracks  However, even though i now clearly understand the concept and value of a point to point layout, I can't imagine actually building one for two reasons:

1.  My bias set in my early years in the hobby is so strong towards continuous running.  It would be like changing from being right handed to left handed.  

2.  Demonstrating the layout to folks who are not in the hobby, or to children, is much easier to do with a continuous loop (at least for me).  The trains run while I talk, without requiring any attention at all from me.

And in my early days in the hobby, there was no point in even trying to talk to me about modeling a specific era.  If I liked a locomotive, I could find a rationale for getting it and putting it on my layout   My fertile imagination could make just about anything work.  Even now, I find the concept of modeling a specific era to constraining.  At least I have now limited myself to the family of railroads that were the ancestors of modern day CSX.  That's progress, at least.

Now, the question is, is my development in the hobby typical?  And, if one evolves and goes through stages in the hobby, is it really possible or even desirable to skip stages?  I can tell you this:  my current layout is my third of my lifetime.  When I first started building each layout, I really believed I would be totally satisfied with it, and it would be my last.  I've been working on my current layout for a year, and I already am realizing that it has issues that can probably not be resolved without a taking the chainsaw to it.  But on paper, it looked perfect.

So ignorance is bliss.  As a beginner, I began my model railroading adventure in utter bliss.  My challenges have added up as I have gained experience and knowledge.  The MRH website has contributed mightily.  My advice to any beginner would be to not glue anything down.  All track should be easy to pick up so you can start over.  Don't invest time and money into scenery until you fall in love with your track plan.  But, that's just me.  Experiences may, and probably will, vary 

A little competition never hurt

While only the "newbie" might (probably doesn't) know what they truly want, how about a future article that picks up on the new MR'r and what they might experience? I am suggesting a two-, three- or more-way friendly competition among MRH staff/contributors to each build a new layout that would fit a typical spare room, garage or basement. A limit could be placed on the total spending and perhaps on the build time as well. A very few required features like at least one industry with a siding and either a bridge or a tunnel could be mandatory. Some items or tools or methods could be banned to keep everything at the beginner (skill and budget) level. Prohibit elaborate bench work and outside skills like machinist or electrician. Some low investment - high return techniques could be incorporated such as structures created by laminating prints of prototype buildings onto card stock after mild "photoshopping." Comments, ideas?

That's the route!

Johnny, I dare say the BEST way to learn this, though, is precisely HOW you've learned it!  That first layout is the Price of Experience!

I am that newbie

Yep, that's me. I got the bug a bout 2 years ago from my Wife's grandfather. So I borrowed some old, like 1960/70 model railroad magazines and started reading. But it didn't do me much good.

I knew that I wanted to do the old west, run 4-4-0's and 2-6-0's with old passenger cars and box cars. So I sat out to build me a layout, 4' X 8' as I was regulated to my garage by the house boss. So I thought, N scale would be great as I could get more in my small area. So off I went, on my own, trying to design a layout. Big mountain, river, small town, mine on top of the mountain, logging on the other side of the mountain. I decided to use flex track as I thought it would be easier.

So I got it built and realized that it just didn't work. Too much stuff in a small area, Mountain too tall, etc. So I decided to tear it down and start over. Then a buddy turned me on to this site. Now I'm designing a 10' X 16' modular in the garage. I've posted my plans on here and gotten a lot of good info. I'm still doing N scale, but I've moved my era forward several years, into the 1930/40's.

Yes at first I had no idea what I was doing and not much support or reference from others. But now from reading a lot on this site and a few books, I have a solid plan and can move forward to what I hope to be a fun and exciting experience that will last.

What do I want....

I am a beginner that has yet to begin.  I have been fascinated by trains for a very long time but have always had other activities taking up my time.  I have traveled up the I-25 corridor in Colorado for most of my life and have watched the massive coal trains running from the Powder River basin in Wyoming to the various power plants in Colorado.  With that background, this is what I want:

1. A massive layout with long, continuous running, double mainline track with long coal trains, trains with multiple loads, and several trains with specialty equipment (i.e. wind turbine blades that I have scene running through the area.

2. Several Industrial areas, both big and small, that represent areas that I grew up around and that are familiar.

3. Beautiful scenery that represent the beautiful mountains/foothills, cities and industries.

4. My wife, child and future children to take an active interest so that I'm not just tooling away in a dark room by myself.

I think these are the typical dreams of a beginner like myself.  But I am also a realist and know that this will most likely not happen soon, if ever.  I have been trolling these forums for a few months and have been inspired by the work of M.C. Fugiwara and Scarpia, amongst others.  The beauty that can be created in miniature is a great goal to strive for.

I am selling a small townhome and will be moving into another temporary, small living space and don't see my dreams of a home layout coming true anytime soon, but that is fine with me.  I have a lot to learn and I learn more every time I view this site.

So with all that said, here are my realistic goals:

1. Build a small switching layout in HO, with roughly 1980's to present time frame.

2. Include some of all scenic elements: water, grass, trees, rocks, roads, buildings, etc.

3. Learn how to run operations.

I don't expect anything great from the layout, but if it could be incorporated into a future layout, that would be great.

Leroy

Noob

Good Point...

You know, Benny, you're absolutely right.

Maybe the advice to the newbie should be "G'hed! Dive in guy!"  After all, we always learn best from our mistakes.

Hey Leroy, what's stopping you from creating a small switching layout, module or even a diorama?  Each of these provide their own level of enjoyment from operations, track laying, wiring and even scenery techniques.  Don't think it's impossible to start!

Reverse Running...

Hence the whole point of Chainsaw Layouts!!

(I don't think that article should have been a "reverse running," it's just plain good old fashioned common sense!!!]

Reverse Running shouldn't just be total nonsense

Reverse Running needs to make a kind of sense and not just be total foolishness. The idea of building a layout deliberately with the thought it's going to be chainsaw fodder could be seen as rather mercenary, wasteful, or just plain off-the-wall.

That's what good a Reverse Running is made of: hey, now I'd never thought of it quite that way before. The best RR's actually make a kind of sense once you think about it a little bit. "Chainsaw layouts" was a classic there, thank you Dave Clemmens!

...

I suppose then, as they say, the thing about common sense is that it just isn't so common afterall?

Speaking of curves, I've got a great idea for a Reverse Running...

Send it in

Benny:

Keep it to a page of 10 point type in Word and we might be interested. Go ahead and write it up and send it in.

Getting Started

Johnny,

What is holding me up is the fact that I will be moving within the month.  This should cut my commute down from 1.5 hours each way to hopefully nil.  At that point, I would like to get the Woodland Scenic starter kits to start getting some experience.  When I do, I will try to start some blogs and see what happens from there.

Leroy

K.I.S.S

In engineering, we are supposed to use the KISS principle or Keep It Simple Stupid. Design for the beginner with beginner based goods.

1. After deciding scale (you picked HO, but I would go N for the shear quantity of stuff I can put on the same area), what sets are available? Most come with the ballasted track, and I would recommend Atlas or Kato over Bachmann. Design around the set plus a few additional pieces of track. By using the ballasted track, the newbie does not have to worry about nailing track down or ballasting to the same extent as standard track.

2. Pick simple easy to build or pre-built structures that go with the railcars from the set. Don't worry about locomotive facilities, unless you pick steam era.

3. Using basic scenery skills and better yet the Woodland Scenics kits, add scenery.

4. A tad late here, but easy benchwork is important! Maybe add a pull out drawer for the transformer and switch controls.

Hmmmm...I smell an article.

The experts should not try to

The experts should not try to advice beginners to do what they do.

I am an N scaler and my layout was set in southern Ontario in 1900. Why? because I grew up just outside Toronto and I love the old pioneer days.

There are two serious models railroaders in the area, one is an MMR and his layout utilizes scale rail with some hand-laid track, super detailed scenery, weathered rolling stock and motive power and a trackplan designed for operation.

The other fellow has been working on his for over 40 years, his track is HO 100 gauge, the scenery is very basic, his motive power and rolling stock is seldom weathered, he spends more time on structures and collecting people and vehicles, the track plan is functional, there are two basic loops with sidings for industry. It is not setup for operations, because the fellow wants to "run trains" which to him means have the train go past his buildings, people and vehicles.

Which one is the better modeller? neither, they are both doing what THEY want.

When I come across a beginner, instead of "giving advice", I ask questions, I find out what the other person wants. If you ask the right questions, or ask enough questions, the new modeller will make his own decisions on scale, era and location, also if he wants operation or scenery as his main interest.

Just my two cents worth.

--

Will Annand